Rebecca ~ Daphne du Maurier ~ 6/04 Export

From Our Editors
"It's no wonder that the woman who becomes the second Mrs. de Winter (whose first name we never learn) eagerly accepts Maxim de Winter's offer of matrimony. She's young, orphaned, and employed as companion to a mean-spirited fading beauty. The handsome widower simply sweeps her off her feet. In a matter of days, the new bride accompanies her seemingly devoted husband to Manderley, his isolated home on the Cornish coast. From the first, the sinister housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, frightens the new bride with her chilling devotion to the dead first Mrs. de Winter, Rebecca. And, all to soon, the second Mrs. de Winter realizes that Maxim married her for her youth and warmth, hoping to use her as a shield against Rebecca's malignant presence -- a lingering evil that threatens to destroy them both from beyond the grave.
First published in 1938, this classic gothic novel is such a compelling read that it won the Anthony Award for Best Novel of the Century." ~ Barnes & Noble

Biography of Daphne du Maurier || Daphne du Maurier's Home Page

**Discussion Schedule**
CHAPTER	DATE

1 - 9	June 15 - 21
10 - 21	June 22 - 28
22 - Epilogue	June 29 - July 5

This discussion is in memory of our late discussion leader, Lorrie Gorg.

Discussion Leader: Bill H

B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please Contact Books

I extend an invitation to all you readers of good fiction to join this discussion of the timeless classic "Rebecca." I'm sure your posted expressions will create more depth and insight to the novel giving us a greater understanding and appreciation of du Maurier's masterpiece. I have only read three novels two times, of course, "Rebecca" is one of them. Reading along with you, dear readers, will bring the total to three times for this novel.
Before Lorrie took a turn for the worse I asked her if she would co lead "Rebecca" with me and that gracious lady responded by saying, "Yes, or any other you chose." However, that was not to be. So, as you can see in the heading, I have dedicated the discussion of "Rebecca" to the memory of our Lorrie.
I will post a reading schedule shortly..

Bill H

I will join others discussing this wonderful novel. You can count on me Bill.

Eloïse

I read this when I was prehaps 12 or 13 and I was at a meeting of the Girl Reserves ( I wonder if they still have them ..sponsored by the YWCA) and the leader asked what books we had read and I said Rebecca..

For some reason she was surprised but in any case I have read it at least three times since then and would enjoy reading it again and discuss it with everyone...anna

I;ll be there with rings on my fingers and bells on my toes. Okay, maybe just with rings on my finges, but I'll be there. Looking forward to the discussion.

Eloise, Anna and Scrawler, Welcome and I'm happy to see you three here. Maybe someone else will bring the bells )

Bill H

I just dug out my old yellowed copy, have bookmarked this site, and am looking forward. I also have enjoyed the Masterpiece Theatre VHS version with Diana Rigg as Mrs. Danvers...sends shivers up one's spine! Will we be assigned chapters for discussion, or are we to read the book and then have discussions on various subjects and characters? pymfan

Welcome, Wysteria, glad you joined us. The list keeps rowing and I believe we will have a great discussion.

Bill H

Bluebird24 posted in Classical Mysteries that he/she would be joining the Rebecca discussion.

Bill H

I will have to try to find my old copy of this book or get one from the library. I am near the end of a mystery story of sorts, "Five Quarters of the Orange," that we are discussing on SN. When I finish, I will start "Rebecca."

I'll be here, BILL.

Mal

Horselover and Mal, welcome and thanks for joing in. WOW! we are getting quite a group.

Bill H

Daphne du Maurier

Bill H

I can't understand why I've never read this book. It was immensely popular in the years following its publication, as we all know. When many of us were teen-agers, I'm guessing. I can remember the girls talking about it, and passing the book around among themselves. But who was interested in that girl-stuff then? When my friends were more likely to be willing to let me peruse their TRUE WESTERNS, or TRUE DETECTIVE, and all that nonsense.

Well, now I'm the proud possessor of a 1971, AVON BOOKS edition of REBECCA, which I picked up for a buck yesterday, at the Goodwill Store. The library copy was out on loan. 'Over 3,000,000 copies sold' it says on the cover. And I'm as proud as the guy who got a Picasso for a buck the other day. The Picasso which fetched $104,000,000 at an art auction. This guy's Picasso, which she pinned to the wall over her desk, was the splendid, huge reproduction featured on page one of our morning newspaper. When she had it tacked to the wall she fired off a letter to the editor, thanking him, and bemusing all us readers.

Strange. The difference a few years make. Chapter One is all the bait it took to get me hooked. The narrator seems like quite a character. Just where does this overgrown garden path of hers take us. Lead on.

Jonathan

JONATHAN, I'm really happy you're going to participate in this discussion.

Mal

Jonathan, welcome aboard. This promises to be a great discussion. I'm sure your contributons will be worthwhile.

Bill H

This discussion is now READ ONLY and will open for the Book Discussion on June 15. We look forward to seeing you all then.

Hello, and once again welcome to the Rebecca discussion. The folks who have already joined our discussion promise to make it very interesting. I hope their posts encourage others to participate also.
Critics have said this novel takes it's place alongside all the great suspense mystery stories that have been written. I am eager to learn if you agree with their assessment of this enduring Daphne du Maurier classic.
I ask for your cooperation in adhering to the schedule that is posted in the heading. Some readers will be following this schedule, and jumping ahead will spoil their reading pleasure.Thank you.

Bill H

Bill, I have started to read the book and thinking back, it is the movie that I saw and I have never read Rebecca before, so I am looking forward to a great discussion.

Mrs de Winter to be, as we don't know her first name. seemed innocent and barely a teenager by today's standards although she is in her early 20s, is the narrator of the story. The author keeps her, at first, quite true to her age and her scant experience of life. The story starts out in the South of France, Monaco which brings to mind palace hotels hugging the Mediterranean sea with its perfect year round weather. We are transported into the life of the rich and famous holidaying among people of their own kind.

Our poor and inexperienced heroine, who has had no previous training as a servant, finds it extremely hard to adjust to the life of an eccentric socialite who treats her like dirt.

Eloïse

Just started reading yesterday ..and since I am also reading another I will have to pay attention. The first time I read this book I must have been about 10? Seeing the movie later I had to say I liked the book better.

I am reading it with a new eye based on the review...I never realized the young woman never had a name...Now I knew it wasnt Rebecca but I just couldnt believe the author never gave her a name...as everyone who is reading it is finding out...she didnt....anyone want to venture a guess why??? anna PS I have no idea why myself....

Rebecca has been called a Gothic novel. What are the elements of a Gothic novel?

1. Setting in a castle. The castle often contains secret passages, trap doors, secret rooms, dark or hidden staircases, and possibly ruined sections.

2. An atmosphere of mystery and suspense. The work is pervaded by a threatening feeling, a fear enhanced by the unknown. Often the plot itself is built around a mystery.

3. An ancient prophecy is connected with the castle or its inhabitants (either former or present).

4. Omens, portents, visions. A character may have a disturbing dream vision, or some phenomenon may be seen as a portent of coming events.

5. Supernatural or otherwise inexplicable events. Dramatic, amazing events occur.

6. High, even overwrought emotion. The narration may be highly sentimental, and the characters are often overcome by anger, sorrow, surprise, and especially, terror.

7. Women in distress. A lonely, pensive, and oppressed heroine is often the central figure of the novel, so her sufferings are even more pronounced and the focus of attention.

8. Women threatened by a powerful, impulsive, tyrannical male. One or more male characters has the power, as king, lord of the manor, father, or guardian, to demand that one or more of the female characters do something intolerable.

9. The metonymy of gloom and horror. Metonymy is a subtype of metaphor, in which something (like rain) is used to stand for something else (like sorrow).

"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.
The first sentence of this novel is known worldwide. It leads us into the dreamlike description of a house. Daphne du Maurier uses a kind of gauzy dream device throughout this book.

Nature has "encroached on the drive in her stealthy, insidious way." Manderley itself is "grey stone shining in the moonlight", its "mullioned windows reflecting the green lawns and the terrace."

"The house was a sepulchre, our fear and suffering lay beneath its ruins."

The author has suspensefully set the scene in these few pages, and she has introduced one of the main themes and a principal character. It can't be denied that Manderley is a real and important character in this book.

Mal

Oh, Eloise, Anna, and Mal, I'm so glad to see you folks here.
Mal, I loved your post #20. Great! We can all build on that post.
Anna, the only reason I can think of for not giving a name to the young girl may be that she was telling the story, in the manner of the first person, so to speak. Perhaps someone else can give a better answer.

Bill H

Daphne du Maurier could use a pen to paint pictures the way an artist uses a brush to paint a scene. Whenever I think of the novel "Rebecca" I think first of Mrs. Van Hopper, Danvers and the mansion Manderley
What a disgusting character du Maurier made of Mrs. Van Hopper, describing the way she plunged her cigarettes into the cold cream jar to extinguishing them, and how she belittled her young companion every chance she got. Du Maurier used her pen quite well to describe the sinister character of Mrs. Danvers. Oh, that Mrs. Danvers. I suppose "Danny" along with Manderley are the two characters that spring to mind immediately.
Yes, du Maurier gave Manderley character with her description of the mansions itself and the pathways and woods surrounding the house. What a wonderful job Daphne did in describing the blood-red rhododendrons lining the drive just as it burst forth to the front of the house. What a sight that would be!.

Bill H

Hello everybody! I love your descriptions of the Gothic novel, Mal. I love those suspenseful, dramatic settings, putting me in mind of the old Betty Davis movies. I love the description that DDM has written about this old house. I have heard the “Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley again.” I didn’t know from whence it came, however.
I sat up and took notice on the 2nd sentence myself. “It seemed to me I stood by the iron gate leading to the drive and for a while I could not enter for the way was barred to me.” How sad and painful to be refused entry, whether it's in your heart or in your life.

That set the tone for the entirety of the first 1-9 chapters. We learn more about this sinister, secret, menacing mansion and it frightens me. It’s as if the house triumphed after all. Our narrator, the dreamer, (not sure if this is a deliberate artistic move on DDM’s part) speaks as if she is at her journey’s end as she describes the past to us in frightening words, as Mal has pointed out with this sentence. "The house was a sepulchre, our fear and suffering lay beneath its ruins."
Oh my God it just reminded me of the Phantom of the Opera. Now-- that’s even more frightening. Fear is prevalent here and on pg. 10 our narrator tells us “boredom is a pleasing antidote to fear.” I believe that is true - if one continues on and on in their mundane existence, it is comforting not to have to face dread or apprehension. She believes also that we emerge stronger after suffering. I guess I agree with that as well.

She was as tormented as the house seemed to be, doesn’t she?

As Eloise pointed out our story is set in Monaco, at first. That of course reminds me of the luxurious palace of Prince Rainier and his “princess Grace”, surrounded by exclusive resorts and wealthy gamblers. Here we find Max, idling away his time and his $$$$. Sounds like my kinda guy.

You know I remember the movie now! I made past the "name dropper" (had a friend like that - ick). I tried to watch it. But when it got to the terrible housekeeper and the cruel husband I gave up on it. So far I like to book better because I did not think the house was beautiful at all in the movie.

I can see that "smoke" gets in your eyes when you are in "love". He told her he wanted a companion. He never said he wanted a wife. But at least he could have given her a nice wedding. Bought her some nice clothes. Probably took her as a wife to stop gossip - of course that would not.

And how cruel to not have taught her how to act with the servants. Shown her around the house. Told her what was expected of her. He was a monster.

The most important character in this book is Rebecca, whose ghost haunted everyone who ever came in contact with her and some who hadn't -- like the nameless narrator who became the second Mrs. Maximilian de Winter, but never became THE Mrs. de Winter.

Mrs. Danvers was obsessed with the idea of Rebecca. Maximilian seems preoccupied with thoughts of his first wife. Even the dog, Jaspar, knew from her touch and her step that the second Mrs. de Winter was not Rebecca.

The narrator describes Rebecca:

"She had reached out for the house telephone and given her orders for the day, swiftly, efficiently, and run her pencil through an item in the menu that had not pleased her. She had not said, 'Yes, Mrs. Danvers,' and 'Of course, Mrs. Danvers' as I had done."

"I wondered how many urgent letters Rebecca used to write, and who they were written to. Dressmakers perhaps ---- 'I must have the white satin on Tuesday, without fail,' or to her hairdresser --- 'I shall be coming up next Friday and want an appointment at three o'clock with Monsieur Antoine himself. Shampoo, massage, set, and manicure.' " (Page 86)

The self-conscious, self-effacing second Mrs. de Winter proves herself to be everything Mrs. Van Hopper says she is, and plays right into Mrs. Danvers' hands. She's easy prey for the old witch, who would give anything to see her out of the house.

Daphne du Maurier has protrayed the ugliest American anyone could want to see in Mrs. Van Hopper. I wonder if this author's prejudice against Americans was truly as strong as it appears in this book?

And she has portrayed the most naive, gauche, unpolished female in the narrator that I've read about in a long time. One wonders what Max de Winter ever saw in her. By contrast, this character makes the reader wonder exactly what Rebecca really was like. Was she as perfect as everyone seems to think she was, do you suppose? How in the world could anyone so poised, graceful and beautiful as Rebecca ever put up with a dominatrix like Danvers? What was their relationship, do you think?

Mal

it is also the most down-to-earth story I have ever read. I'm not going to allow a young woman's imagination, no matter how enticing, to blind me to the appalling consequences of having her dream come true. The dream to live in a house like Manderley!!!

IT isn't any wonder that she begins her tale with another dream, no doubt a recurring dream, of coming back to Manderley. It may well be that many hauntings begin in such an innocent way. Perhaps her ghost haunts Manderley even now.

I believe it is incorrect to suggest that 'the handsome widower simply sweeps her off her feet.' It's Manderley that our young heroine is after, ever since she found that postcard picture of the old house, in the village shop when she was still a child. Not that long ago, actually. Isn't she in love with old castles and their histories. She has visited the castles along the Loire. And the past has an attraction for her, even so far as wanting to make memories of her special now moments.

The proposal to 'come live with me' comes at just the right moment. Having become disdainful and impatient with Mrs Van Hopper, the quintessential woman of the world, our bright, ambitious young heroine jumps at the chance to live out her dreams.

What a fateful, significant choice she makes, when she is offered such unusual alternatives. Come with me to New York City, you'll love it, says Mrs Van Hopper. Come with me to Manderley, suggests the Unknown Gentleman, inviting her to that place at the end of a long, winding road.

And what did he find attractive about her? We are given reasons as the story unfolds; but it struck me forcefully to hear Margaret Thatcher quoting Ronald Reagan, in her eulogy of him last Friday:

'Nancy came along and saved my soul.'

If ever a soul needed saving, surely it's Maxim's...but that's getting ahead of our story

Jonathan

I don't think Max de Winter is a monster. I think he's enigmatic because he's troubled. Why, though, should the master of this beautiful mansion, who appears to have everything he'd ever want or need, be a troubled man?

Mal

How to stop a discussion. Now we'll all sit around and wonder why JONATHAN thinks a discussion about a dark, somber mystery is "going to be hilarious" !

Mal

I do have to smile at us.. I know I read the book when it came out and saw the movie I think at least twice. We are sticking to the program but I think most of us know the ending and have our opinions ..While I liked the movie I loved this book. I am in love with language and DuMaurier is skilled in using it. She uses words like artists use paint, brushes and canvas...have to be away for awhile but I started this with dinner last night , read before going to sleep and propped it up to read while I ate breakfast!!!!!!I dont know what I ate last night and the only reason I recall breakfast is because it was recent...see you all you spooky people later....anna

"Our bright, ambitious young heroine...", Jonathan? Our heroine appears to me so timid, so malleable, so colorless as to be almost lacking in personality. I could not help thinking that was why DuMaurier didn't give her a name. She is almost a non-person; the nameless observer and narrator.

She is overjoyed to think this vivid man wants her, and will take her away from the extremely unpleasant Mrs. Van Hopper. I think she would never have been able to take the initiative and strike out on her own, if DeWinter had not come along. The second Mrs. DeWinter is, to me, very lacking in substance. ...Babi

I have debated with myself about joining this discussion. This is, and always has been, my favorite book and I am strangely possessive of it so I'm afraid that I will become too closely involved with any criticism of it. But nevertheless, I am going to lurk and maybe say something now and then. Maxim is not a "monster". Probably spoiled and thoughtless as the privileged class often were/are. But the circumstances that led him to Monaco and the meeting with "the girl" have embittered him. I think he is selfishly enjoying her childish innocence because it is such a change from what he has known. That might make him a "rotter", as the British novels used to say, but not a monster. And at her age a young girl is often in love with love and easily dazzled by someone of wealth and brooding mystery such as Maxim de Winter. To be told constantly by her employer of how plain and insignificant she is and then suddenly along comes a wealthy, handsome, tragic, older man who seeks her company! Well, now! That's pretty hard to resist!

I guess the first question I have to ask is has anybody ever lived in house like Manderley or for that matter Du Maurier's house Menabilly and what they thought of it? I've lived in large houses and always felt they were cold, dark and I always had the feeling of loneliness.

Some say this novel is an updated Cinderella story. I would have to disagree. I see this novel as an updated Sleeping Beauty story, with Maxim de Winter as the prince - but a flawed prince. Sleeping beauty can refer to both Rebecca and also the narrator - the 2nd Mrs. De Winter because her beauty is sleeping within her and hasn't emerged yet.

"Then, like all dreamers, I was posessed of a sudden with supernatural powers and passed like a spirit through the barrier before me. The drive wound away in front of me, twisting and turning as it had always done, but as I advanced I was aware that a change had come upon it; it was narrow and unkept, not the drive that we had known. At first I was puzzled and did not understand, and it was only when I bent my head to avoid the low swinging branch of a tree that I realised what had happened. Nature had come into her own again and, little by, little, in her stealthy, insidious way had encroached upon the drive with long tenacious fingers." (p.1)

This passage and others like it I think is what makes Daphne du Maurier such a good writer. She gives us a simple setting and pulls us into the story step by step. It is we who are winding down the road to Manderly along side the narrator. From this passage we can see the atmosphere and suspense starting to build up similar to a storm approaching.

I can't agree that this is a great mystery story but I do think this is a wonderful ghost story. Not the "slice and dice" of today, but rather the ghost stories of the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s. And more importantly it tells the tale of how we react when we think of ghosts. Have you ever gone into a room and suddenly felt cold where there was no such feeling before, or thought you saw something out of the corner of your eye, but when you turn there is nothing there. How do react to such things? In this story the narrator shows us how she reacts to such things.

You know that was the wrong word "monster" - selfish (no compassion for her) was more what I was meaning. We went out today so I did not get to read any farther - and I have not read the whole book so I have a surprise!

Lucky me! You all make this book sound so wonderful!!

I don't know why, but I agree with all of you. But here is my take. "She" (the narrator) is 20 years old, is a recent orphan who was nurtured and protected by 'proper' parents and unfortunately they die leaving her penniless. She is romantic beyond real hiring herself as a companion (slave) to a spoiled rich snobbish woman who abuses of her naïveté. "she" resents her employer but is too insecure to resist her fearing to loose her job and perhaps her lifestyle.

"she" is taken to the South of France Monaco, a paradise if there ever was one and lives in a palace true to her romantic dreams. She meets Mr. de Winter, (Prince Charming), dashing, rich, a handsome older man, just the ticket who sweeps her off her feet in his beautiful horse (car) marries her and brings her to the Caste of her Dreams in England's West Country.

Mind you, it is 1955 (approx) the only thing she knew outside of her loving home with loving parents were her romance novels and her Marderley post card. No wonder she has no color, she hadn't lived yet and it is life that gives us color, yes?

Eloïse

This book was first pubished in 1938, so the story happened just before World War II. The aim of most young women in those days was to marry as well as they could. The narrator had one of two choices, marry the first young man who asked her, or become a governess or a companion so she could support herself.

She was lucky to find a rich employer who would take her to such a romantic place as Monaco, but she was not treated well by this employer. I imagine her dream life made her more content than the life she had or anything she saw in France.

She did not want to go to America with Mrs. Van Hopper. When dashing Maxim de Winter asked her to marry him, she probably thought her dreams had come true. After all, he was not only handsome and rich, he owned the house she adored.

Experiences don't make a sparkling personality, genes do. I rather think this woman's introspective, quiet nature will follow her the rest of her life.

Mal

Hi, I'm new here and delighted to be with you. Someone in my local book club mentioned SeniorNet, and I remembered from previous surfing it looked interesting. I'd forgotten about it, but when I saw on Monday that you were starting Rebecca today, I couldn't resist joining in. I've had a beautiful Folio Society version of the book for a couple of years, and here was a great opportunity to read it!

I know nothing of the plot and am going to try to keep it that way for a change. In fact, I started reading the author bio link posted here but quit when I realized it was going to give away some plot elements! What fun!! Here are some of my first impressions:

The blood red of the flowers along the drive frightens me - the Gothic tone of the book makes me feel they are as forboding as they are beautiful, they're unnatural, out of place, etc.

I suspect the lead character has no name because she serves a function but not as an individual to those around her. Just a guess at this point...

Who wouldn't have married given the choices she believed she had? I personally think she thought she was deeply in love with her husband. After all, he focuses on her - and no one else in her life does in a positive way. So far, I don't think her husband is a monster - just remote and thoughtless in some ways. I can't imagine a husband taking his wife to a place like Manderly and not giving her a through tour, tips on her role, etc.

I didn't think I was a Gothic novelist fan, but I love Rebecca so far. The tone reminds me somewhat of Charlotte Bronte's Wuthering Heights. I can't wait to see what happens next, but I'm trying to hold off reading until shortly before the next week's sessions so my thoughts won't overlap. It's great fun reading all of your comments, and I'm happy to be with you,

Pamela

Rebecca has been compared to Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. In fact, people saw such a resemblance between Rebecca to such books that du Maurier was sued for plagiarism when it was published.

Mal

FrancyLou, Alf, Jonathan, Phyll, BaBi, Scrawler, Scamper, welcome. so happy to see all you here. I hope I haven't missed anyone. .Such a great turn out.
I read all the posts and found them truly remarkable, overflowing with thought and feeling.
I can't answer each and everyone, but I can say, now that it was brought to my attention, it does have the strains of a ghost story, compete with the mansion that the ghost of Rebecca haunts.
I have to agree with FrancyLou that Max de Winter could've schooled his young wife in the running of Manderley. He did not have to leave her to the mercy of Danvers. Surely he had enough contact with "Danny" to know what this woman was like. It is hard to understand that a sophisticated man such as he was could be so thoughtless. Thank heavens she had Frank to guide her somewhat in this matter.
However, she of no first name was an adult and could've seen to a better wardrobe for herself. Her attire was what I faulted her for.
Scrawler asks if any of us lived in a large house. Well, I did. It was my grandmother's house--not near as large as Manderley. Yes, it did have a cold impersonal feeling too and, as a youngster, I didn't like waling the upstairs halls alone. However, the warmth of the family made up for any impersonal feelings of the house. There is another happening in my life that is connected with Gran's house that I must tell you about a little latter.

Bill H.

"…the blood red of the flowers along the drive frightens me…"
Scamper posted this. And, you know, Scamper, it had the same effect on me. I would not have cared for anything like that.
Max de Winter seems to have had designs on this timid young girl from their first meeting. The next day, either at breakfast or lunch, he was seated at his table before the narrator arrived. This was before he knew the chocolate-loving Van Hopper was confined to her room because of an illness. Yet Max was willing to brave another onslaught with the rude woman for another get-together with the young girl.
Well, I don't know what de Winter saw in this girl. He must've known she would not fit in with life at Manderley and the people he knew. She was not at all brushed up, didn't give a hoot about her hair, not a good conversationalist, bit her nails when her anxiety sprung to the fore--which was quite often. The complete opposite of himself and his friends.
What was the man looking for?

Bill H.

I first read the book in high school. Upon that reading I was focused on the young Mrs de Winter and her life in a huge scarey mansion with that horrible Mrs Danvers and her strange ways. Perhaps it is old age, but this time I see Maxim's outright selfishness in marrying her for the sheer reason that she is just the unsophisticated opposite of Rebecca and her ways..sort of a rebellion on his part. She wanted a traditional wedding/he dismissed it outright with the unacceptable reason that he had 'been there,done that'.After marriage he often tells her to stop acting like a child, and ignores her attentions when he wants. AAARRRRGGGG! I did find myself getting impatient with young Mrs de W's hiding behind curtains and doors and picking up the phone and not knowing that the title 'Mrs. DeWinter' now referred to her and that she was the Lady of the House.

Scrawler; I have been to Rhode Island and the Rockerfeller mansion with its lawn overlooking the sea reminds me of Manderly. However, the gigantic wall of red flowers is not there ,of course. But I could not imagine living in it and having to know Mrs Danvers was somewhere present!!!!

So many thoughts, but I'll give it another go later in the week.This is new to me.

Maxim knew what he wanted, he wanted a child bride. One who would not demand shopping at Harrods, or whatever, to dazzle her guests with the latest fashion, her socialite wit, her savoir faire, her nonchalance. 'she' was gauche, tender, as a teenager. 'he' was 42, not looking forward to middle age but wanting to feel young again. He did not even think of helping her getting settled in Manderley, what do you think? He had other business to attend, his little wife would have to learn the ropes alone. He didn't even notice her gaucherie, her shyness, in fact he loved it because it proved that he could still catch a pretty young 'thing', just short of robbing the cradle.

Eloïse

Excuse me. Maxim de Winter loved the young woman he took as his second wife. Why is that so hard to believe?

Mal

Because of his actions toward her after their marriage!

I quite agree. I do believe this handsome, detached 42 yr. old man loved her for what she was. I believe he was charmed by her gaucherie and her innocence. He even tells her: “I’ve enjoyed this hour with you more than I have enjoyed anything for a very long time. You’ve taken me out of myself, out of despondency and introspection, both of which have been my devils for a year.”

He hates memories and prefers to forget every facet of his past. He tells her that if not for her he would have already left for parts unknown. I feel that he truly enjoys her unsophisticated, youthful manner and company. It was thoughtless of him not to better prepare her for the task of mistress of Manderley and I am just assuming that there is a reason for his evasive behavior.

Of course he loved his young wife, there is no doubt about that as he had loved Rebecca before her.

Later, I guess, he will reveal his true mettle.

Mrs van Hopper...putting out her smokes in the cold cream and putting pinched chocolates into the mix. The maid will see to it. I can recall getting a scholarship to a summer camp when I was in high school. My father was a laborer and my mother a secretary working for the state. We didn't have much. I remember being alone in the lavatory with a very rich girl from Florida. She was washing her feet from trecking around outside and proceeded to snatch a very thin,worn- looking towel(mine) off a nearby rack to wipe the pine needles off her feet. Of course her fluffy one remained neatly on the towel rack untouched. She remarked something about it not mattering. After she jammed it back on to the rack I took it and said..."That's ok..I'll just wash it out" She showed little to no remorse except to remark something about not knowing it was mine.It hurt. Perhaps I was reading Rebecca at this time...these memories surfaced as I thought about the book just now. Drs. Freud and Jung where are you???

I mentioned we were reading Rebecca and she has read it herself in the past and recalls it well. When I said I was a bit put out he didnt see that she needed clothes and some help before coming to Manderly ..she said men of that age,that time , that wealth would never think of doing that ..they expected their wives to do it and had she asked or suggested she needed some new clothes he would have said "Have a go at it!" She felt the men of that time would have only worried if their mistress was not well clothed..a new take..I think he did love her..what is more important he needed her..her lack of social graces was not something he worried about...after all as the sister says this is horse country ..hunting etc...and while they had servants to care for the horses I can see them mucking about with the horses etc...She lived in a time when as was it Mal said young women either married or became part of a household as a nanny, mother's helper or servant....And Mrs Danvers is described as a formidable person who we can see is not going to be nice!!!!When I read this book I never peeked at the ending ..DuMaurier kept me glued to the story...I didnt want to spoil it ..and I could feel that stange lure of something evil...still do .......anna

There is so much to come in this book, that it's probably not a good idea to make hasty judgments about anyone -- except perhaps for Mrs. Danvers. It seems clear that the author wants the reader to know early on that Maxim's housekeeper is not on his new wife's side.

As some of you know, I attended and graduated from a women's college on a scholarship. Most of the students were (and are today) daughters of parents who were quite well-endowed, if not very rich. My college roommate was a member of an old Boston family whose wealth went back generations. I was raised by blue collar working class people. Never was I looked down on by my roommate or young women in her class of society. Never would they be so rude as to use my towel rather than their own.

My roommate's parents owned an estate outside Boston on many acres of land. The house was Georgian, like many fine homes in the UK. There were probably over 30 rooms. I was invited there several times to a world very unlike the one I'd always known. This huge house was not cold. The sitting rooms, though large, were divided into conversation areas. The house itself was light and airy, a pleasure to be in.

Of course, the people who owned this house had many more servants than Maxim de Winter had, and they didn't have a Mrs. Danvers for a housekeeper or a ghost by the name of Rebecca.

Mal

Eloise...I think he was the catch, not she. How jealous Mrs Van Hopper must have been.

In the movie it is She who calls Maxim back from the precipice, as he is contemplating a leap into the raging surf. That was Hitchcock's way of putting Her into his life, just as he was preparing to rejoin Rebecca in the deep waters.

Mal...I can't see why you make an exception of Mrs Danvers, along with your very good advice not to make hasty judgments about anyone in the book. They are a strange lot, aren't they? All of them. Driving each other crazy. Except for Jasper. He's always there for Her, taking Her places She might not otherwise find. As for Mrs Danver's strange behavior, there are good reasons for that. But we are seeing Mrs Danvers only through Her eyes, the eyes of the nameless one.

I can't believe what I'm reading about Her. Not surprising. She's the biggest mystery of them all, despite everything She tells us about Herself. Much of it is deceptive, I believe. Take for example that 'introspective, quiet nature, that Mal sees in Her. She may seem that way, when she admits her shortcomings to herself. But in reality she's alive to everything around Her. She sees everything. Misses nothing. Hears everything. Smells everything. Feels everything. And drags the reader along, willy-nilly, in a very forceful way. One cannot choose but listen.

She does have plenty of personality. And real character, too. She is a survivor. The story of Her nightmare is a psychological thriller.

Much of it is not apparent at first. Partly because she wishes it so, and partly it's as Eloise has remarked: 'No wonder she has no color, she hadn't lived yet.' (37)

She has barely started living, when everything She dreamed about takes the wildest turns. So much happens to Her in such a short time. Little more than a summer and a fall, I believe. She had no idea of what she was getting into, when she married Maxim. Did he love her? Of course. But then came the jealousies, and She doubted his love for Her, making Her determined to win it back, even if it meant complicity in his crimes. Horrors!

Only Jasper keeps his head through all of it.

Jonathan

Was puzzled by the second chapter which describes their life after Manderley. Why are they living in a small hotel -- what happened to his money? They don't want to live in a larger hotel because people will recognize them -- why?? She says they are content lazing away the days and reading the papers. She keeps from him anything that would remind him of Manderley -- he has her now so why does this still disturb him?

Wysteria and Kidsal, thank you for joining the discussion. And Kidsal rest assured all those fine questions you asked will be answered!
Early in the story the author subtly brought out the importance of the four-thirty tea tradition in the English society. And, with her description of Frith and Robert going through the formality of serving the de Winters, I could visualize the fire glowing in the hearth as the table was laid with scones, sandwiches, and of course the hot pot of tea.
I was amazed at the enormous waste of food at breakfast, etc. at Manderley. The buffet breakfast had an assortment of food that was far too much for two people to consume. It reminded me of the buffet spreads at the hotels in Las Vegas. Oh my, how I wanted to eat all that was displayed. I suppose at Manderley the left over food went to the servants. Let's hope so.

Bill H

I saw the Hitchcock film and enjoyed it. But if you can, get a copy of the recent PBS film with the handsome Charles Dance as Maxim and Dame Diana Rigg as Mrs Danvers; chilling!

The early chapters of this book are full of omens and portents. What Kidsal mentioned about the second chapter is a device du Maurier uses to create suspense, make the reader wonder about what terrible thing could have happened to make the narrator's husband become anxious when he has memories of Manderley and shy away from seeing people he once knew. This author uses what comes in the future to create an ominous mood about the past.

There are several mysteries in this book, not the least of which is Maximilian de Winter. Du Maurier quotes a verse from The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson on Page 32. The narrator, not then the second Mrs. de Winter, thinks

"What hounds of heaven had driven him to the high hills this afternoon? I thought of his car, with half a length between it and that drop of two thousand feet, and the blank expression on his face. What footsteps echoed in his mind, what whispers, and what memories, and why, of all poems, must he keep this one in his car?"

What a mood this creates! The inscription "Max ---- from Rebecca, May 17th" only intensifies the reader's curiosity and the tension of the piece. What is the significance of that signature and the date?

The sea is a mystery, too. The narrator says to Danvers after she is led to a suite in the previously unused wing:

" 'You can't see the sea from here then,' I said, turning to Mrs. Danvers.

" 'No, not from this wing,' she answered (in a peculiar way), 'you can't even hear it, either. You would not know the sea was anywhere near, not from this wing.' "

Why is the sea forbidden to the second Mrs. de Winter? What awful secrets does it conceal? Why does what Mrs. Danvers tells her fill her with "a strange feeling of disquiet, foreboding"? We are reading the work of a clever, very adroit writer.

Mal

Jonathan-- I have ordered the Hitchcock version to rent. I am off to Vermont touring around for the next couple of days. I shall return...........

Mal shares a very special observation...."We are reading the work of a clever, very adroit writer."

And that is what makes it so delicious. We can sit it our comfortable homes, safe ...and yet the author makes us anxious, fearful...that is an awesome talent.

My book from the library has several other stories by duMaurier ..all I have read in the past but now feel I will read again...although if my memory serves me well ..this was the best...anna

Such terrific posts! And of course everyone gives DuMaurier full honors for her skill as a writer and story-teller.

Reading the posts about the new Mrs. DeWinter, I found myself agreeing with both Mal and Eloise. Mal said she believed Mrs. D would always retain her "quiet, introspective" character, and I would certainly think that is true. But Eloise points out that we acquire 'color', something our heroine seems to lack, with the experiences of life, and that is also true. At present, our 'quiet, introspective' young woman does seem colorless, but perhaps we will see that change.

BILL wrote that Maxim DeWinter chose a girl who was "the complete opposite of himself and his friends. What was he looking for?" I think he was looking for...and desperately needed...someone who was just that. The complete opposite of himself, of his friends...and of his ex-wife. In a word, ...an innocent. ...Babi

your daughter was absolutely right. It simply never occurred to Maxim that the girl wouldn't just "know" all there was to know about running a large household and managing a staff. Young women of the circles that he moved in were taught these things from a very early age because they were "to the manor born" And "she", being very shy and insecure and probably not wanting to appear even more gauche to this worldly man, couldn't confess to him that she hadn't a clue about running Manderley. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think I could have asked Mrs. Danvers for the time of day---the woman would have scared me to death!

As for the second Mrs. de Winter being nameless, I think du Maurier intended her to be the narrator so that we could see everything through her eyes but isn't she also the unwitting catalyst that unfolds the mystery of Rebecca? If Maxim had never met her would the story of Rebecca have ever been revealed?

It really is difficult to discuss this book and stick to only early chapters because so many of us have read it, some of us many, many times. Or we have seen the movie(s). We know how the story unfolds, we know what later events are coming. I really wish I could go back and read it again as though it was for the first time because du Maurier was a master at the twist of the plot that suddenly sends you off into a completely different direction.

As I read these early chapters, I am inclined to agree with those of you who share a low opinion of Max de Winter. I don't think of him as loathsome. I do picture him as a weak, spineless individual indulging himself in self pity, with only the de Winter name giving him any stature. Without the family name, he probably would've been ignored as a weak chinned individual to be paid no accord.
The cigarette-smoking Van Hopper claimed he could marry any woman he wished. But could he!? Any woman of his society class and financial standing would see what he was like and, if she had any sense, refuse his offer of marriage.
We have been laboring under a misunderstanding. She of no name did have a first name. Max dubbed her "Monkey Face." Can you imagine that? "Monkey Face!" I realize this was said in private and meant for words of endearment. HA. HA Only good old Max would think of this as an expression of endearment. This is another example of his lack of thoughtlessness or feelings for her. And the poor child accepted it without a word. I do wonder what she looked like that put this thought into his head. Perhaps this was an underlying or subliminal contempt he held for her or for all women. Just maybe it was du Maurier's disapproval of the character she created.

Bill H

Am I the only one here who does not despise Max de Winter?

In the time of this story, say the mid-30's (and, yes, even now), it was not the job of the rich husband to train the wife in her new household duties; it was the duty of a kindly, friendly housekeeper. Mrs. Danvers waved the ghost of super-perfect Rebecca over the head of the second Mrs. de Winter, and so intimidated her that the poor young woman didn't dare to make changes or ask for anything, including help from anyone.

Only genteel and very respectable young women from good families that had fallen on hard times were hired to be companions of people like Mrs. Van Hopper. Girls with this background were taught early how to manage a household and be the mistress of it. The men who married them expected this, and well they should.

A major problem with the narrator, both when she worked for Mrs. Van Hopper and after she was married, was that she was not assertive enough. She acted toward Danvers as if she worked for her, rather than vice versa. Whether, initially, this was the result of being beaten down by Mrs. Van Hopper, I don't know. It certainly was what Daphne du Maurier wanted for this character. The book wouldn't be what it is if she were not this way.

Rather than raking Maximilian over the coals and discussing the personality and character of the narrator, why aren't we talking about Rebecca, the most important character in the book? What's your assessment of her after these few chapters? Was she as superlatively gifted and wonderful in life as she's made out to be after death?

Mal

"Girls with this background were taught early how to manage a household and be the mistress of it…"
Mal, de Winter knew his young bride did not have this training. He knew she was ill prepared to take over the running of his house. He demonstrated his knowledge of her short comings by calling ahead of their arrival to his home and asking Frith not to assemble the staff.
It would've been so much easier for the new bride if he had called Danvers aside and explained in no uncertain terms that he expected his housekeeper to train his new wife in the management of Manderley. Danvers, knowing the young girl had the full backing of Max, may have acted differently. However, this was a story and it had to unfold this way.

Bill H

I like that. And She persists in finding a short-lived innocence in herself. I find it easier to use 'She' and 'Her', rather than the 'narrator', or the 'nameless one'. The author decided to keep it entirely a first person account, and contrived successfully to give the book an amazing 'true confession' flavor. Half the magic of REBECCA, I believe, lies in the intimacy and strong individuality of the protagonist.

So, She projects an image of innocence. If that is the opposite that Maxim is looking for in a companion, then it must be that he feels guilt-ridden. But I find it strange that an 'innocent' could be capable of telling her story in such a sinister fashion as to leave her readers feeling beckoned by 'that strange lure of something evil', as Anna puts it so nicely. (51)

Of course, when she tells it, many years have passed since those happenings which forced them into living as exiles in small hotel rooms far from that Cornish heaven. Now, it seems, both of them are pursued by some diabolical hound of hell. With all the clues She scatters about, this Hound of Heaven thing by Francis Thompson, this gift from Rebecca to Max, (see Mal's post #57), has to be the most mystifying. The Hound represents Love, does it not? What in heaven's name was Rebecca trying to tell him with that? One looks long and hard for love in this story. A sense of being pursued, on the other hand, seems to be a common theme.

Love, She herself only discovers some superficial notions about it, about half way through the story. What a fascinating thing, trying to keep up with her. Back and forth between the past and present. In and out of reality and memory and dream. What a complex creature!!

Jonathan

I can't say that Maxim loved his second wife, after all he treated her like he treated his dog, Jasper. I agree with him when he said he was lonely, and needed companionship. When he asked her to marry her, he mentioned that she could be his companion instead of Mrs. Van Hopper. I took that to mean he wanted her to "fetch and carry" for him just as she did for Mrs. Van Hopper. Besides it had been less than a year since his first wife died, why would he marry again after such a short time? Certainly he would have known the "tongues would wag" when he brought back a young wife to Manderly. No, I think if Maxim had really loved this young girl he would have traveled in Europe until the time when it was appropriate to bring her to Manderly. On the other hand the 2nd Mrs. de Winter's only job it seemed was to please her husband. She I think truly loved him from the first moment she saw him. Although he was charming, I don't think his love, if indeed he did love her, was on the same level as hers.

I see this as a class story. Du Maurier gives a vivid description of the differences between the classes of the 1930s. Mrs. Van Hopper was portrayed through the eyes of the narrator. We see the gross differences between the various classes of this time. This subject alone would have been interesting in the 1930s, but du Maurier uses her experiences and creates for us a very remarkable insight into the class society of the 1930s.

"We can never go back again, that much is certain. The past is still too close to us. The things we have tried to forget and put behind us would stir again, and that sense of fear, of furtive unrest, struggling at length to blind unreasoning panic - now mercifully stilled, thank God - might in some manner unforseen become a living companion, as it had been before."

Can the past haunt us as du Mauir suggests? What happens when we tend to have the past as our constant companion as opposed to living in the present?

Mal, you know I think he loved her for her youth - but not as a wife.

In a way like the dog Jasper - oh look I have my happy, bright things with me.

And I have been thinking. When I had foreign exchange students come from Brazil and they had the wrong clothes to go to school I took them and got sweat shirts or whatever they needed - I did not let them go and be embarrassed. I told them to do the things Americans do to get ready for school. Be on time for parties (Brazilians are always 3 hours late, lol). Someone needs to guide the "new person".

The Brazil children are also much younger in maturity than my children were - so I can see some of this young person in them, or them in her. Esp. her not saying Bens name.

But then again when she got the catalog she did not order the things she had the chance to, why!

As I have not read the whole book - please don't give up the ending.

I am so enjoying it.

I can see now why JONATHAN said, "this is going to be hilarious."

Many of you have said that you've read the book, some more than once. Many of you have seen the films. So have I -- read the book more than once -- and I've seen the Hitchcock version of it several times.

I know that Max de Winter loved HER. Why? SHE was honest; SHE was true, SHE was wholesome and pure. SHE was loving and unselfish. SHE seemed uncomplicated to Max. SHE was real, not a hypocrite and not living a lie.

When de Winter met her, SHE was a light, like a sip of water to a dying man, a hope for a new life.

About Danvers Maximilian says on Page 74-75:

". . . she's an extraordinary character in many ways, and possibly not very easy for another woman to get on with. You mustn't worry about it. If she really makes herself a nuisance we'll get rid of her. But she's efficient, you know, and will take all housekeeping worries off your hands. I dare say she's a bit of a bully to the staff. She doesn't dare to bully me though. I'd have given her the sack long ago if she had tried."

Right there, de Winter tells HER how to handle Mrs. Danvers -- "If she bullies you, tell her she's fired."Maximilian also makes it quite clear at breakfast the next day that he's a busy man:

"He looked up at me and smiled. 'You mustn't mind,' he said, 'this is something you will have to get used to. I've no time to hang about at this hour of day. Running a place like Manderley is a full-time job.' "

" 'I've got a mass of things to see to this morning, do you think you can amuse yourself?' he said. 'I'd like to have taken you round the garden, but I must see Crawley, my agent. I've been away from things much too long.' " Page 79

He not only gives HER some guidelines about her role as mistress of Manderley with Danvers, he tells her outright what his responsibilities at Manderley are.

Yes, I see class distinctions in this novel, but the distinctions SHE makes are self-created. SHE comes from a group that is known as the "genteel poor". This does not mean her family lived in poverty, it means they lived comfortably, but were no longer rich in the way Max de Winter is. It means SHE has to support herself. Lily Bart in Edith Wharton's House of Mirth was in much the same social position that SHE is. Lily was not as lucky as SHE was.

Mal

Bill, You seem amazed at Max's using "Monkey Face" as a term of endearment. You said, "Max dubbed her 'Monkey Face.' Can you imagine that?" However, this particular term seems to have been a popular form of endearment at that time. In the Hitchcock movie, "Suspicion," the male protagonist played by Cary Grant calls his fiancee (and later wife) by this same affectionate term. And believe it or not, the shy, bookish female lead is played by Joan Fontaine (the original second Mrs. de Winter). I probably wouldn't mind being called "Monkey Face" if it was by Sir Lawrence Olivier and Cary Grant.

On a more serious note, I have to agree with Phyll. It is difficult to discuss this book as if we don't know what really happens when many of us have read it, some of us many, many times. It's fun, of course, to be aware of du Maurier's masterful use of misdirection, but the suspense is diminished now.

As for the narrator's inexperience running a large household, Maxim had grown accustomed to Mrs. Danvers running things and probably did not expect his new wife to take over immediately. Of course, if she had been more assertive and fired the insolent housekeeper, there would have been no mystery story. Also it is essential to the mystery to believe along with the narrator that Maxim was desperately in love with Rebecca.

I love the description of Manderley at the beginning in the dream--the way "Nature had come into her own again" and taken back from civilization the drive and gardens. If I fail to do my gardening chores for a couple of weeks, the same thing happens to my house. )

Mrs. Van Hopper is an excellent foil for the personality of the narrator. Her snobbery and thick-skinned lack of appreciation for Maxim's ironic comments sets off the narrator's shyness and embarrassment as she understands quite well the stinging retorts that Mrs Van Hopper regards as pleasantries.

Then what a wonderful coincidence that Mrs. Van Hopper gets sick, leaving the way open for the narrator to spent the important "getting to know you" time with Maxim. She tells him the story of the shopkeeper's attempted bribe, and he tells her "You are not made for that sort of job." Perhaps the first hint that he is thinking of her in another context. Of course, during this period, she first finds out about the tragic death of Rebecca.

The scene at Rebecca's desk is wonderful. We see the narrator feeling as if she is "staying in somebody else's house." Then the telephone rings and, when someone asks for Mrs. de Winter, she replies "Mrs. de Winter has been dead for over a year."

The narrator's first friend at Manderley is Beatrice, Maxim's sister. But even Beatrice hints at some future disaster when there is a "tiny doubt in her voice" when she hopes they will be happy. "You see," says Beatrice, "you are so very different from Rebecca."

Yes I know the end but it has been so many years I no longer recall all the details ..so for me this is like a new read...and I am looking for clues ,trying to decipher them, trying to connect them to my memory...and it is quite different to read this as senior lady who has lived a lot herself than the child of 11 when I first read it ...there are nuances here I am sure I was unaware of then..Also feel I most likely associated myself at that age with the young and almost awkward story teller. One reason I probably enjoyed the book more than the movie was Joan Fontaine playing her. Heavens she was OLD in my mind...

I am sure as a mature young lady I would have said NO to Maxim...he would have been too old and if I had married him ..he wouldnt have needed to tell me what to do I WOULD HAVE SACKED Mrs Danvers by the second day! And of course changed the whole story..I am sure there would have been a third Mrs De after me!!!!!!! anna just love reading the book and all the posts...delightful ...

I had to come back = I keep forgetting to tell you all. My book says the snob, Mrs. Van Hopper, put her cigerette out in the butter. I was so shocked I went back and read it. The butter!! How very rude.

I caught that too and just found it so gross...Since I have never smoked that is not something I have ever seen but I would think there are those who do things like that...and even non smokers have some bad habits but that was really TOO MUCH..........anna

Anna, and FrancyLou, you are both right about the butter thing. I thought I was seeing things about putting the cigarette out in the jar of cold cream. So I went back and did a read search. Only after Mrs. Van Hopper was confined to her room with the illness. did she, and here I quote: "…mashing her cigarette in a jar of cleansing cream..." Oh well, whether it be butter or cleansing cream I agree it is still gross:o)

Bill H

Mrs. Van Hopper is a very minor character in this book. Daphne du Maurier went overboard when she built this character, making her the most vulgar, hateful American anyone could possibly meet.

About Daphne du Maurier:

“She hated Americans and she was not crazy about women and she didn’t like feminism and she didn’t like Jews."

"Daughter of the famous British actor and theater manager, Gerald (who also, intriguingly, created the role of Captain Hook in Peter Pan), and granddaughter of George, the bestselling novelist of Trilby, du Maurier was an instant aristocrat, born with a heritage, an early sense of possibility and purpose.

“ 'As an heir, Daphne du Maurier was bequeathed a bizarre private religion, a literary voice so lovable (at least on the surface) that it was impossible to emulate, and a vast audience encompassing theater- and, shortly, film-goers. She also inherited a towering image of herself as necromantic female descendant.' ”

"Her vision of relationships, especially family relationships, is unapologetically brutal. The magic that runs through her stories does not soften the characters or resolve their tensions … Though critics lazily call du Maurier a descendant of the Brontes, her supernaturalism does not, like theirs, bring the story to rest; it intensifies the frustration, underlying her supposed romances."

"She was a male-centred novelist."

"If Daphne du Maurier wrote romances at all, their achievement is to infuse with menace the lives women are supposed to want."

Source:

This is quoted from an interview with Nina Auerbach, author of Daphne du Maurier: Haunted Heiress, a biography of Daphne Du Maurier. Haunted by an Heiress

Not a romance...

You know pigs are clean they roll in the Mud to stay cool - and not get sun burned. The only reason they would be dirty is if their keepers do not keep their pens clean. So that was very unfair to the pigs to be compared to Mrs. Van Hopper.

This is the strangest story. I can't pretend to understand the mind of this young lady, this young companion, this 'friend of the bosom'; but if Mrs Van Hopper only knew, she would, she would probably feel that she has a viper in close proximity. I believe it's jealousy that makes Her say some of the things She says. She also changes her mind about many things as she matures. Mrs Van H is not the vulgar person She makes her out to be. She turns out to be wrong about Rebecca as well, just the way she is about others who stand in her way. She is such a young thing. Charming in a way. But what a turmoil in her heart.

Jonathan

That brief biography of Daphne du Maurier painted an unattractive personality of the woman. It would be interesting to know what physiological trauma(s) early in her life caused this mental flaw of viewing family relationships in an "unapologetically brutal" manner. Could it have been an unkind act perpetrated by her own parents?
Perhaps her unsavory view of society, etc, explains the sinister feeling in most of her stories. Even in one of her short stories that I read --"Don't Look Now"--this heavy gloom prevailed. When I finished this short tale, I felt the heavy shadow she created with her pen.

Bill H

But who can blame Her? She is simply overwhelmed when she arrives at Manderley. There is so much more here than just all the beautiful flowers that Maxim promised Her. There really is a strange atmosphere around the place. Given Her sensitivities and misgivings, and the stern looks of a harried Mrs Danvers, who still grieves the loss of her former 'companion', who can blame Her for imagining the worst? I believe someone has said that this is a bildungsroman. I couldn't agree more.

Jonathan

Again, in these first chapters, Danvers has been described as a sinister, mysterious woman, as perceived by the narrator. But the rest of the staff and Max didn't see her this way, and certainly not Danny's beloved Rebecca. Their assessment of Danvers was "Strange." Oh yes, it is a given Danvers was strange and perhaps not playing with a full deck.
However, the 2nd Mrs. de winter saw her as an authoritarian type person and this could've clouded the young girl's judgment. The housekeeper recognized her fear and used it as a tool against our heroine to make life miserable. It was no accident that Danvers wanted to appear sinister to the young wife, no accident that Danny would appear suddenly and unexpectedly in dark hallways and rooms that SHE thought were unoccupied. This sinister belief would add another dimension to Danvers personality, giving the girl more apprehension. I found myself wanting, as another reader here suggested, the new wife to face up to Mrs. Danvers. But this would've created another story..

Bill H

who has the courage to come out and say that Du Maurier's stuff is worth a second look. Rebecca, et al, have been just too much for established critics. I've looked in vain for a Harold Bloom treatment. Or is there one I have missed?...

And the Jungians? Where are they? Du M was writing for them. Did I say hilarious? Must have been like in nervous laughter. Whistling in the dark.

Jonathan

There was nothing wrong physiologically or psychologically with Daphne du Maurier. An aristocrat who moved and lived in the upper crust, she was the daughter of a knighted, acclaimed man of the theater and the granddaughter of a distinguished writer, whose novel, Trilby, made Svengali a household word.

Daphne du Maurier was an out and out, consummate snob, tutored by governesses. She also had the eyes, ears and sensitivities of a truly gifted writer. Put the two together, and you get what you read. She sold her first work at the age of 20 and continued to succeed in her area of expertise.

I think the reason you find the narrator as complex as you do, JONATHAN, is because quite often in this book du Maurier takes herself out of the character of SHE and writes as Daphne du Maurier. I believe that if the book had been written in the third person, you would not find SHE as complicated as you think. No, Harold Bloom does not condescend to include du Maurier in his list of British women writers.

It interests me to read that her biographer, Nina Auerbach, has said that du Maurier would not want to be remembered for Rebecca. Auerbach thinks this novel is far from being representative of Daphne du Maurier's work, that is it "masochistic, derivative and only quasi-coherent.”

I'll tell you one thing: After reading the Auberbach interview, I want to read a great deal more of Daphne du Maurier's work, so I can find out what this fine writer is truly about.

Mal

Mal, thank you for post #83.
You said you would like to read more of du Maurier's work. I would suggest reading the novels "My Cousin Rachel" and "Jamaica In." These two fine novels along with the short story "Don't Look Now" will give you insight to the somber approach du Maurier had for life. None of her stories I've read had a trace of humor.
In the short story "Don't Look Now," du Maurier turned, what could've been a happy holiday for two people into a nightmare. But this is the style of Daphne du Maurier, probably bred from her dislike of society other than her own class. Her writing is an extension of her psyche. Should we be grateful for that extension. Well, I am. It gave me hours of fine reading pleasure. However, Would I like her for a friend??

Bill H

BILL, I've read My Cousin Rachel and Jamaica Inn, but so long ago I don't remember them much. I ordered the Auerbach biography a little while ago. It could possibly be here by Saturday. When it comes, I'll post what I think might interest us.

The scene between HER and Mrs. Danvers in the hall of the west wing after SHE gets lost is striking, I think.

"I opened a door at hazard, and found a room in total darkness, no chink of light coming through the closed shutters, while I could see dimly, in the centre of the room the outline of furniture swathed in white dust-sheets. The room smelt close and stale, the smell of a room seldom if ever used, whose ornaments are herded together in the centre of a bed and left there, covered with a sheet."

What an eerie, chilling feeling the reader gets from this. Then, on her view of the sea:

"You might imagine, in the winter, it would creep upon to those green lawns and threaten the house itself, for even now, because of the high wind, there was a mist upon it."

"A hurrying cloud hid the sun for a moment as I watdched, and the sea changed colour instantly, becoming black, and the white crests with them very pitiless suddenly, and cruel, not the gay sparkling sea I had looked on first."

It is as if a fearsome enemy had approached.

Mrs. Danvers appears, and SHE feels "guilty and ashamed," as if she'd been trespassing. Danvers queries about whether SHE went in any of the rooms and offers to show her the entire west wing. SHE refuses, anxious to get away, "as though she were a warder, and I in custody." This idea of being imprisoned with Danvers as jailer is marvelous here.

Mrs. Danvers persists in her offer to show HER the west wing, and SHE thinks about the time a childhood friend told her where there was a locked book and wanted her to go and look at it, pinching her arm and looking at her with a "white, excited face, and her small beady eyes."

Danvers is excited about opening the west wing and showing it to HER? But why?

What suspense! What a creepy feeling!

Mal

Really, could we have expected more of our narrator at this point. She was first the obedient daughter of a respectable household, then the submissive companion to an unpleasant and difficult woman, then the young and inexperienced wife of an older, sophisticated man. Everything in her life to this point teaches her to remain under the authority of those who know better. Nothing has happened to her to give her any measure of self-confidence, except Max DeWinter asking her to marry him. And now, thanks to Mrs. Danvers, she suspects that Max still loves Rebecca.

Fire the housekeeper, when she knows nothing about running an establishment the size of Manderley? Stand up to the woman, when she has never had to defy anyone? Much as we would love to see this happen, it would not be at all realistic. ...Babi

Has anyone read the sequel written by S. Beauman, REBECCA'S TALE? sSeveral years ago I did read the other sequel "Mrs deWinter" but did not care too much for it...it did not make too much of an impression as I can't recall much about the book except that it seemed bland. Is Rebecca's tale worth the reading?

Thanks Mal for your comments on Daphne duMaurier.

I can't help myself from reading ahead...such a wonderful book!

Some advice from you posters, please. Would you suggest Jamaica Inn, My Cousin Rachel, Short Stories, or Beauman's sequel next? I am gravitating towards the sequel-if it is worth the time.

I think the place that du Maurier lived influenced her writing totally. She lived in and wrote of Cornwall which has been described as the most haunted place in the British Isles. It is a dark and brooding rugged coast of England and fiercely beautiful and is the scene of many legends and ghost stories. Manderley was modeled on the manor house of Menabilly that du Maurier fell in love with the moment she saw it and later rented? (leased?) and lived in for some time. Perhaps it even had ghosts of its own? Being surrounded by that atmosphere would definitely color an author's writing. After all, isn't one of the first rules of writing, write of what you know?

As for her dislike of Americans, unfortunately that is not an uncommon attitude in Europe (as my husband and I found out in traveling in England and Scotland) and even more unfortunately not without valid cause in some cases. Not all Americans behave as they should when they travel overseas and also, just the basic cultural differences can cause misunderstandings sometimes. In the majority of cases the people that we met, especially in Scotland, were delightful, friendly, helpful to us in our sometimes confused state, and we enjoyed them tremendously but it wasn't always the case. And there were times when we came across fellow countrymen that were an embarrassment to us. But they were definitely in the minority! For du Maurier to have a blanket dislike of Americans displays a surprising narrow mindedness.

A picture of Menabilly

Cornwall coastline

Don't you think Maxim married below his station. Why would he have done that I wonder? He certainly didn't help the 2nd Mrs. de Winter by doing so. Somewhere in my reasearch I read somewhere that when du Maurier wrote Maxim's character she was thinking of her father and I can see the 2nd Mrs. de Winter thinking of Maxim as a father figure. According to the "Dictionary of Literary Biography" 'her father Gerald du Maurier, a stage actor famous for such roles as the gentlemean burglar, Raffles,and the detective Bulldog Drummond. Du Mauier grew up in the evironment of the arts, but also in thrall to her theatrical father, at once a gadfly and a puritanical bully.' I wonder did Maxim show these same characteristics as her father or was it someone else that showed these. I also can't help think that I see Du Maurier in the 2nd Mrs. de Winter, but this character is such a "mousy" character I'd rather not think of the author like this.

"I wonder what my life would be today, if Mrs. Van Hopper had not been a snob. Funny to think that the course of my existence hung like a thread upon that quality of hers. Her curiosity was a disease, almost a mania. At first I had been shocked, wretchedly embarrassed; I would feel like a whipping boy who must bear his master's pains when I watched people laugh behind her back, leave a room huriedlly upon her entrance, or even vanish behind a Service door on the corridor upstairs."

As I read this book, I can't help feel that all the characters are living in the past rather than the here and now. The 2nd Mrs. de Winter may think that by marrying Maxim she has escaped Mrs. Van Hopper, but has she really? Isn't she jumping from the frying pan into the fire? If she had stood up to Mrs. Van Hopper wouldn't she have been a better person. She could have used this experience to stand up to Mrs. Danvers or even Maxim, but since she wasn't able to really come out of her shell since she hadn't this experience to fall back on. She saw herself as "a whipping boy" with Mrs. Van Hopper, I wonder if she didn't see herself like this with Mrs. Danvers as well.

You all are forgetting she had not matured yet. She had not lived life. No one had taught her how to stand up to someone. Her husband did not say when we get home you do this. We'll tour the grounds after I take care of the business. I'll have my sister come down and help us decorate and hire a new maid or whatever Danny was.

When my dad died my mother came into a room and I was sitting in his chair. She said what are you doing. I said smelling daddy. She redecored the whole room.

I have gotten to the secrect I think... Past the ship wreck.

I have been reading a book in a day. But with this stupid migraine I have to read over and over to understand sometimes.

We and goodness knows I am in the forefront of discussing this book..I wonder if I had someone years ago to discuss it with what ideas we might share. I have never found duMaurier a happy author..all of her novels I think I read all of them were all ominious ..I want to re-read Frenchman's Creek which is in the book I have ..I keep feeling perhaps it wasnt as dark..

We keep thinking "IF" if she, the story teller had been spunky instead of mousey how different the story would have been or if Maxim had only used his head and helped her ..not told her what she might do..who at that age felt confident to take on this man, this home, Mrs Danvers as well as some of the other servants disdain.....not many of us ..what I am saying ..it is a story! written to draw us into the plot, I feel anxious and almost afraid to move forward ..of course I do ..cant put the thing down..which is the skill du MAurier had in spades.

I am not sure I recall correctly but I remember reading she had a private place on the estate where she went ..and wrote by herself. Although she writes darkly it doesnt mean she was that way. AND I ask myself do I like sunny happy books better? Yes sometimes ..but they are easy to set aside and and never capture me as duMauriers writing did ..the only one I was ever disappointed in was one of her last or perhaps the last..the name escapes me now although I do have it downstairs in the den...Flight of the Falcon !!! I think that is it ..will have to google and see.

In my opinion this is a great discussion...love the links Mal and thanks and look forward to more thoughts ..anna

Ok - I finished it ! Gosh what a twister!!! I have a book to buy for my Daughter in Law for Christmas. I asked her today if she had read it.

In fact we should give the Rebecca to Nicole Brown's family. And the case that is going on in Modesto or Stocton right now. Peterson is it. Lacy Peterson I think.

I've always thought that Rebecca is a reflection of the time in which it is set. I know, from personal experience, what can happen to a young girl when she is alone and has to rely on whatever circumstances come her way to survive. My mother came to England as a young girl as governess to a German speaking family from what became Czechoslovakia after WW1. She was gently born, orphaned at a young age and educated in a convent school setting. What skills did she have other than those suitable to being a wife? She could cook, knit and sew and liked children and needed to get away from the environment she was in. So too did the second Mrs de Winter..she was at the crossroads of life and chose one path over another. Colkot

It's true that Mrs Van Hopper is a minor character, and yet she plays such a crucial role in the developing consciousness and eventual fate of the heroine. As already quoted:

'I wonder what my life would be today, if Mrs Van Hopper had not been such a snob.'

For a starter, she might never have met Maxim, in whom she could confide her catty opinions of her mistress. And except for the well-informed Mrs Van Hopper, how would She have gotten the vital information that vexed her for the rest of her life? She hears from Mrs Van H that Maxim is an

'attractive creature, but queer-tempered I should think, difficult to know...very close.' p42

And even more crucial to her eventual fate She hears from Mrs Van H the fateful words that come to haunt her and turned Manderley into the nightmare it became.

'I never saw her (Rebecca)' says Mrs Van H, 'but I believe she was very lovely. Expuisitely turned out, and brilliant in every way.'

For poor She, Rebecca soon becomes alternately, a role model, and a tough act to follow. As for Maxim, what an object lesson in what wives demand of their husbands!

If Mrs Van Hopper is indeed a minor character, she still keeps showing up in her bosom companion's thoughts, long after they have gone their separate ways. How much the younger woman reveals about herself in the way she feels and thinks about her employer. In what she says about her. I believe these early chapters are designed to draw a detailed portrait of the narrator herself. In her own words. Hiding nothing it would seem. Mostly unflattering and self-effacing.

It seems such an irony that many readers feel compelled to take her at her word, perhaps even wishing subconsciously to identify with Her. And She has such a wonderful way of leading one up the masochistic garden path. An even greater 'but'. She hardly knows herself. Unless she's being devious. She's very clever, nevertheless. And a quick learner. With more experience, She comes to realize that Mrs Van Hopper was right with some of her advice. (Even Mrs Danvers seems human in the end.) Imagine that! Under different circumstances, and several hundred pages along, Mrs Van Hopper even becomes a reality check!

I hope I'm not spoiling anything for first-time readers. Not to worry. If you have read the first two or three chapters you already know how the story ends. If you finished the book, no doubt you find yourself more mystified than ever. As I do.

Jonathan

JONATHAN, I'm sorry if I offended you by saying Mrs. Van Hopper is a minor character in this book. It's true that she is a pivotal one and one that helps lead HER into the arms of Maximilian de Winter. I was growing tired of so much attention here being spent on this unattractive, ill-mannered woman with so little thought being given to Rebecca, who, after all, is the reason for the book. It's not titled "Rebecca" for nothing.

Yes, we're all well aware of the fact that the narrator is an inexperienced young woman. But she does think in very sophisticated ways sometimes that are far beyond her years.

Colkot, thank you for your post. You have corroborated what I said earlier about the very few choices a young woman in diminished social circumstances had in those days.

As far as SHE's being devious is concerned, I am trying, JONATHAN, to see what you mean. To me, devious means plotting behind someone's back to achieve your aims. SHE certainly did all she could to be with Maxim while Mrs. Van Hopper was ill, and why not? SHE enjoyed his company; he treated her with respect instead of walking all over her as her employer did.

Of course, when this happens people allow it to happen. It seems to me that SHE fell apart more or less when she was in the company of women. She's cowed by Mrs. Van Hopper. Mrs. Danvers scares her with her authoritarian ways.

SHE is not like this with de Winter or other men as they appear in the book. SHE seems to have unnatural feelings of inferiority when it comes to women, a perfect set-up for intimidation by the ghost of Rebecca with her impossibly perfect facade.

The author does drop some hints through Maxim that there might be something quite different behind the myth of Rebecca's porcelain perfection. All SHE knows is what she hears from Mrs. Van Hopper, Mrs. Danvers and the servants of Manderley who act as if Rebecca is still around. And her own imagination. SHE possesses an enormous imagination.

SHE also gets impressions of this unknown ghost from Rebecca's desk, Rebecca's chair, Rebecca's dog, Rebecca's house. What the young narrator doesn't seem to consider is that Manderley was never Rebecca's house, that it is and always was Max's, and that Mrs. de Winter is now SHE and not anyone else.

Okay, what I get from this musing at the keyboard is that Daphne du Maurier created a character who loses her confidence when she's with women. A character who skulks around trying to keep herself hidden from women in her life rather than standing up for her rights and claiming what is rightfully hers -- that includes her rightful husband.

No, FRANCY, Rebecca is not like those victims you mentioned. Rebecca was anything but innocent, and there's a question in my mind about whether she was a victim of anyone else's hand besides her own.

Mal

Have I missed it or was it mentioned somewhere about her orphaned state? What has happened to her parents? What horrible events caused her to withdraw and slink away to such an extreme? Why was she so timid and fearful of others ?

Frank Crawley, agent for the estate, and a more important character in the novel than one may realize, was the glue that helped keep the young woman's psyche from completely collapsing. He appeared to be the crutch she could lean on in times of embarrassment or emotional stress. Daphne du Maurier recognized the reader wanted some member of the Manderley staff the new bride could turn to, feel comfortable asking questions, and relying on for helpful answers. an ally so to speak. Frank, as a neutral, filled the role perfectly.
What are your feelings about Frank Crawley in relation to the 2nd Mrs. de Winter?

Bill H

We can't put ideal situations on fictitious characters because the author tells the story as she sees fit. The reactions posted here is, in my view exactly as the author would have meant them to be. D du M is excellent in her writing as she keeps us riveted to the story.

Making "Her"a plain jane is just a ploy to focus our attention on the villain Danvers. Mrs Van der Hopper was a farce, D du M could have chosen a wealthy Italian, French, German, but she chose an American parvenue instead as she deemed it fitting for that character. There are Hoppers in every country in the world and at least she was not as hypocrite as the socialites hovering around Marderley.

Maxim was lost when he met Her and She his is holding his hand because she feels his despair, She doesn't know how he has been hurt or who hurt him, but She knows something ominous had taken place, Maxim needed her protection and she loved him. His minor failings failed to kill her love for him.

She is an astute and strong women hiding behind the facade of gaucheries and shyness. She had been loved by her parents, it is obvious to me and that gave her sound judgment to deal with the situations as they occurred.

She has allies, Jasper, Beatrice, Frith and Frank and she is going to use them to find out what everybody is trying to hide from her.

Maxim needed a wife like her regardless whether she came from below his station in life or not. He had enough sense to know that She would put order in his life and She did.

Eloïse

BILL, Frank Crawley says barely two words to the narrator in Chapter 9. There is no way the reader can possibly know at this point whether he will be important to this story, or what his relationship with the narrator might turn out to be, unless we begin discussing what is beyond this chapter. The assigned reading and discussion schedule states that we don't go farther than this until next Tuesday. It's okay with me if we do, but we should be told, I think, if that is your plan.

ANDY, as far as I can see nothing at all is mentioned about the narrator's parents or life before now, except that she opened up to Maxim about her beloved father one time when they went out while Mrs. Van Hopper was ill. It's as if the author is saying, "The background of this character is not important. The present is what is important with her as far as this story is concerned."

Mal

It's wise, I think, to remember the fact that Mrs. Van Hopper's rather impulsive decision to go to New York and take HER with her pushed Max to act quickly. If he didn't ask her to marry him right at that point there was the chance that SHE would disappear into the wild blue yonder and he'd never see her again. He says something interesting on Page 90 when SHE asks if he wants "a secretary or something":

" 'You think I ask you this on the spur of the moment, don't you? Because you say you don't want to go to to New York. You think I ask you to marry me for the same reason you believed I drove you about in the car, yes, and gave you dinner that first evening. To be kind. Don't you?'

" 'Yes,' I said.

" 'One day,' he went on, spreading his toast thick, 'you may realize that philanthropy is not my strongest quality. At the moment I don't think you realise anything at all. You haven't answered my question. Are you going to marry me?' "

There's an urgency here, which culminates with his saying:

" ' My suggestion doesn't seem to have gone too well,' " he said. "I'm sorry. I rather thought you loved me. A fine blow to my conceit.'

" 'I do love you, ' I said. 'I love you dreadfully. You've made me very unhappy and I've been crying all night because I thought I should never see you again.'

"When I said that, I remember he laughed, and stretched his hand to me across the breakfast table. 'Bless you for that,' he said; 'one day, when you reach that exalted age of thirty-five which you told me was your ambition, I'll remind you of this moment. And you won't believe me. It's a pity you have to grow up.' "

" ' I'm being rather a brute to you, aren't I?' he said; 'this isn't your idea of a proposal. We ought to be in a conservatory, you in a white frock with a rose in your hand, and violin playing a waltz in the distance. And I should make violent love toyou behind a palm tree. You would feel then that you were getting your money's worth. Poor darling, what a shame. Never mind. I'll take you to Venice for our honeymoon, and we'll hold hands in the gondola. But we won't stay too long because I want to show you Manderley." Page 91.

We're told a lot about Max de Winter in this scene. He does not make major decisions or rush into things without thinking about them first. He does not do big favors just for the sake of doing them or to please someone's whim or rescue her. He offers his most precious possession to this young woman -- Manderley. A man who doesn't love the woman he's asked to marry him would not do such a thing.

Mal

Mal, I had a senior moment. By all means let us stick to the plan the schedule lays out. Thank you for pointing it this out.

Bill H

What do you think about Beatrice? I've known women like her in that stratum of society, who have the great confidence old money can bring. They're blunt, don't stand on formality, wear 20 year old tweeds, and don't care if they get their boots mucked up when they go to the stables.

Beatrice has a sharp eye. She senses the unusual relationship between Rebecca and Mrs. Danvers. Page 99:

" 'I dare say she'll get over it in time,' " said Beatrice, 'but it may make things rather unpleasant for you at first. Of course she's insanely jealous. I was afraid she would be.' "

" ' . . . . she resents your being here at all, that's the trouble.'

" ' Why?' I said, ' why should she resent me?'

" ' I thought you knew,' said Beatrice; 'I thuoght Maxim would have told you. She simply adored Rebecca.' "

Here the author not only give us insight into Mrs. Danvers, she's warning the narrator, and foreshadowing what's to come.

It's interesting that Chapter 9 ends with Beatrice's saying, " . . . you are so very different from Rebecca."

Every once in a while du Maurier puts in a throwaway line like this full of clues which should make both the reader and the narrator stop short and ask what she means. Why and how is SHE different from Rebecca?

If Maxim truly loved Rebecca and the way she was, why in the world would he marry someone who is so totally different from her?

That opens up all kinds of possibiities, doesn't it?

Mal

Scrawler, I share your opinion of the story giving you the impression of it taking place in the past. And it WAS. Everyone in the house created this atmosphere with their morbid thoughts and unwillingness to realize that Rebecca was dead.
Frith and Danny would proclaim the 1st Mrs. d would do it like this or like that.... And the poor waif accepted their opinion. I can understand Danvers saying this because of her dislike for the 2nd. but Frith, as the essence of the formal English butler should've carried out her instructions without a word.

Bill H

Maxim proposed to the girl while eating his breakfast. Immediately after his words were spoken she said she was not at all sure she would fit in with life at Manderley. His response to her was: "You are almost as ignorant as Mrs. Van Hopper and just as unintelligent…"
This cruel, belittling remark perhaps caused her insecure feelings in dealing with the household staff. Perhaps she thought that if her husband felt this way about her would those of his circle in life feel the same way. Van Hopper and Max added to her insecurity. No wonder she could not deal with life at Manderley.

Bill H

It's nothing compared to what She does when She is given the scope that comes with Manderley.

'a slough of sentiment' A very apt phrase as it turns out. 'Packing up.' (the first words of ch6), and it all comes pouring out. Half a dozen pages of emotional and philosophical musings. It becomes an unforgettable moment in Her young life, coming back so vividly years later. It defies analysis. A sympathetic reader can only accompany the distressed and despairing young girl as she tries coping with her adolescent, romantic, traumatic journey through young womanhood. And wifehood isn't any easier when it comes.

It has been brought up, in connection with Auerbach's work, that REBECCA is, among other things, a derivative piece of literature. With Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre provided as a source of inspiration for Rebecca. That may well be. A good case could probably be made for it.

I would like to suggest another source, just as plausible, for du Maurier's passionate heroine, beset by so many problems of identity and relationships. The slough of sentiment reminded me of another slough, John Bunyon's pilgrim's Slough of Despond. That was a spiritual phenomenon. But the heart, too, has its slough, as we can see in Her confessions.

What my chums and I , growing up in a semi-rural, mid-western environment, regarded as a slough, was a place better avoided. Soggy and boggy. Hinting at quicksands. A place of stinging gnats...and it seemed to go on forever if one lost one's bearings. Used to have bad dreams about sloughs!

Jonathan

BILL, interpretation is funny, isn't it? I took Max de Winter's comment to mean, "Don't be stupid. If I thought you didn't belong to my sort of world, I never would have asked you to come into it." Surely, actions speak louder than words, don't they?

Well, we're not supposed to like Max de Winter anyway, and we're supposed to think he was madly in love with Rebecca and still is when he marries HER.

Here's something from another Gothic type novel for comparison.

"Humbug! Most things free-born will submit to anything for a salary; therefore, keep to yourself, and don't venture on generalities of which you are intensely ignorant."

That's Rochester to Jane Eyre.

Mal

I quite enjoy Beatrice. She's my kind of gal. She is spirited, honest and powerful. I love a lady that tells it like it is without any fuss.

Well, heck, ANDY. That's a good description of you !

Mal

I have one question going around and around in my mind. Why did Maxim marry the narrator? What did he gain from the marriage? You'd think men in his position would want "trophy wives" rather than dull, mousy individuals like the narrator is portrayed as.

I like Bee very much. Of all the characters I think she is the most straightforward and honest. She tells it like it is. I think she really likes the 2nd Mrs. de Winter and really does try and help her out as best she can in her own way.

According to "Dictionary of Literary Biography", 'Muriel Beaumont was Daphne du Maurier's mother who was an actress. She [Muriel Beaumont] was not an easy person to understand, both as a child and as a growing adolescent I could never feel quite sure of her, sensing some sort of disapproval in her attitude towards me. Could it be that, totally unconscious of the fact, she resented the ever growing bond and affction between [father] and myself? Du Mauier went on to note that the child "who cannot rush to his or her mother in moments of stress, telling all, will look elsewhere for comfort, or become a loner.'" I can see this attitude towards her mother reflected in the narrator when she deals with the overbearing women of this novel.

"Rather forlorn, more than a little dissatisfied, I lent back in my chair and took up the book of poems. The volume was well-worn, well-thumbed, failling open automatically at what must be a much-frequented page.

"I fled Him, down the nights and down the days; I fled Him down the arches of the years; I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears I hid from Him, and under running laughter, Up vistaed slopes I sped And shot, precipitated Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears, From those strong feet that followed, followed."

When I read this passage a chill went down my spine. It was as if Rebecca was calling from her grave with this poem - a warning perhaps or a clue as to where she was!

"I picked up the book again, and this time it opened at the title-page, and I read the dedication. "Max - from Rebecca. May 17th," written in a curious, slanting hand. A little blob of impatience, had shaken her pen to make the ink flow freely. And then, as it bubbled through the nib, it came a little thick, so tht the name Rebecca stood out black and strong, the tall and sloping R dwarfing the other letters."

Was this title-page symbolic of Rebecca as she lived. Did she stand out above evryone else? And why did Max or Maxim still carry this book in his car? Why would Rebecca give a book of poems to someone like Maxim?

I never thought of Rebecca as a victim..... I was thinking of the victims families (in real life).

But back to the book. It felt like she had lost her mother young so had not had the training to be prepared. Today, a father and mother teach a daughter to order things. Make reservations, etc. Take charge. Talk back. Stand up for what it right.

I was born and raised in San Francisco. Took the bus to school. We did not ride in the back of the bus (you know why). How things have changed. No way would that happen today.

But this book was so well written I can not start another book. I must stay in this discussion. I have to stay with you all. Hang on every word!!!!!

Francis Thompson, the poet who wrote "The Hound of Heaven" died in 1907. The Titanic sank on its maiden voyage on April 14, 1912. I think Thompson was referring to a different Titan.

Mal

Scrawler, Max de Winter was in need of companionship to help ease his loneliness. Perhaps he saw the young woman to be a good listener, and it is possible he did love her. Perhaps others can better reasons.
Mal, that is really stretching an interpretation. )
Like some of you I have been trying to determine the age of the young woman. I reason she had to be at least in her twenties. This story was set in either the twenties or thirties, and I'm sure English law in that time period was stringent enough to prevent a minor from obtaining a passport without being accompanied abroad by a responsible adult. As well as being her employer, Mrs. Van Hoper would have to assume such responsibility for a minor in her employ, either as a legal guardian/chaperone.
This being the case the young woman would have to have Van Hopper's consent to marry. Since she didn't have to obtain anyone's consent this rules out the possibility of her being in her teens.
How old do you think she was?

FrancyLou, yes, by all means stay the course. I'm sure you will plenty say as we move through the book.

Bill H

I think the narrator is in her early twenties. It seems this was a common theme in novels of that day, especially mysteries and thrillers--the young, shy, innocent, inexperienced wife brought into a situation financially overwhelming and fraught with overtones of secrets and menace. Perhaps Maxim married her precisely because she was not likely to uncover the truth about his marriage to Rebecca.

I wonder why, if Beatrice was as honest and insightful as you all seem to think, she would not have become aware of the real relationship between Maxim and Rebecca. If as she says, "Tact is not my strong point," why would she not have given the narrator some slight hint that the picture painted by Mrs. Danvers was not entirely accurate? Right at the very beginning of Chapter 10, as Beatrice and Giles are leaving, Maxim seems to reveal how strained the visit was for him. Was he afraid his sister would spill the beans?

Was Mrs. Danvers aware of her mistress's infidelities? Did she help her conceal these escapades? I suspect it might be hard, within the household, to pretend the marriage was perfectly happy.

I won’t be participating in the discussion, but I did read this book at the beginning of June. It was a good read and I couldn’t put it down, but I have to say that I got VERY impatient with the two main characters, Maxim de Winter and his new bride! I gave her more leeway because she was young and learning, but I gave him no benefit of the doubt. The fact that he swept an innocent young woman off her feet and married her without being honest about his past or what he had done, or concern over the repercussions it might have on her life, makes him a CAD in my eyes----manipulative, immature, cowardly and a WIMP.

While reading this Charles and Diana’s situation kept flashing before my eyes, Charles repeating de Winter role, and Diana being the silly young girl who was caught in his web. The ending to that story was inevitable and more real than the ending to this book.

It was also odd to me how the young bride reacted. Before she knew very much about the prior goings-on regarding Rebecca, she was afraid of both the “ghost” of Rebecca and of Mrs. Danvers. After she put most the pieces together she was no longer afraid. Just goes to show you---I would have reacted in the exact opposite manner, and taken control and gone about my business to become mistress of that house by hook or by crook BEFORE I knew the whole story, and been SCARED TO DEATH after the truth dawned on me. So this young woman is an enigma to me.

Neither Mrs. Danvers nor Rebecca seemed “real” to me. I guess my mind simply cannot comprehend such malevolent creatures as they were. Neither did the reactions of the dogs feel “real”. If Rebecca and her male cousin were truly such awful characters, I don’t think either of them would have been kind to the dogs, at least NOT when they were alone with the dogs, and the dogs would have reacted accordingly. Dogs just know these things. Instead, the dogs missed Rebecca, and Jasper wagged his tail when the cousin came to visit. If the reaction of the dogs was authentic, then there must have been some good to Rebecca and her cousin, and they must not have been completely evil as was depicted; and further, if that was so, then de Winter deserved to be hung for his crime, or at least judged for manslaughter.

I thought the American character, Mrs. Van Hopper, although not portrayed in a good light was a better character than all the rest of them put together. At least she was OPEN and one knew where one stood, even if one didn’t like her. She was a spoiled and demanding and gossipy sycophant, but at least there was nothing malevolent about her. De Winter’s sister, Beatrice, was the only one I had any real feeling for. She was both open and real and kind in spite of the restrictive social conventions around her. The relationships of the owners of a manor to their servants was also fascinating to me, and the relationships of the servants to each other, and their “stiff upper lip” no matter what was going on in that house with the pretense that “all was well”. And the gossip about the new bride’s underwear? Amazing, but highly annoying people!

The other thing I’m often puzzled by in books that discuss this era and other eras in Britain, is the amount of money these families have, without having to do any real work. No wonder they seem spoiled and demanding and uppity and stay busy inventing all sorts of “rules” to live by that cause claustrophobia in me. When a servant brings you tea every day and cleans up after you too, makes your bed and plans the menu, etc., etc., etc. and you don’t have to lift a finger, well, the human mind has to keep busy, often with thinking up mischief and useless social rules and gossip.

I have to admit that the book “caught” me in its spell and the writing was well done. But I thought du Maurier’s writing was much better when she described the house and its surroundings than it was when she described the people. Actually the house had more personality than her characters did. Seems to me that none of the characters were really well developed or even very interesting except in a “fit-into-the-plot” like way. I do recall reading this book as a teenager and feeling quite differently about it, thinking it was just so terribly “romantic”. Must be that I’m getting old and no longer have any patience for what I call the “Senta Syndrome” ---- named after Senta, that angelic gal in the opera called “The Flying Dutchman”, who saves the Dutchman because she is willing to “go unto death” with him. Bah! What a snowjob that’s been done to women over the centuries---the sort of “stick-with-your-man-even-though-he’s-a-real-SOB” idea. The book is in that same category, because de Winter certainly did NOT deserve the wife that he got.

However, now that I’ve read the book again, I am curious to see what Hitchock did with this plot in his movie and how he changed things to fit the movie format, and if he had sense enough to delve deeper into some of the characters and their motivations.

The last post really put it in a large nutshell...Believe it or not there really were..(and maybe still are) people like that...met a few of them in my first job when banking was the realm of the upper classes! The rot really set in when they let us "scholarship girls" attend the elite private/public schools during WW2 in England! And we had the most dreadful local accents instead of the standardBBC English..! We were taught to be "nice and polite," to be ladylike and so on.. The 2nd Mrs de Winter was all caught up in her upbringing and to even question her husband's decisions or motives was unthinkable. I do believe however, that I saw the Hitchcock film before I ever read the book,it would have been in the adult section of the library which was off limits for me then. I would have been about 11 or 12 years old and a big fan of Laurence Olivier. My mother loved films and books and was honing her English language skills at the time.. Colkot

Lorrie is one of the first people who welcomed me. Who told me where and how to get around and so on. Bill you have just been great with the supense/thriller type books. So there was no way I would not have tried this book. I am so glad I did!

"I do recall reading this book as a teenager and feeling quite differently about it, thinking it was just so terribly “romantic”. " that was my reaction when I read it about 11-12 years old...Now I just want to shake everyone...tell them what to do and put a "pox" ON Mrs Danvers...She could have been kinder to the un-named second Mrs D and max could have been more appreciative of his young wife ..anna

ROSE, you're speaking as a truly liberated woman of the 21st century when you comment on this book without considering the mores and culture of Rebecca's day. What Colkot says is true. For the narrator to behave in any other way toward her husband would be unthinkable at that time. Women were brought up to think a man should sweep them off their feet and be the masters of their lives.

Maxim de Winter fulfilled all the requirements of a principal literary character in a romantic, Gothic novel. He was handsome; he was rich, he was mysterious, and he held a dark secret.

Pre-World War II and the duration of the war were very romantic times in real life and literature. It's been a very brief time that authors have been writing realistically about non-heroes and women who are as assertive and stand on the same footing as men.

It's my feeling that if we cannot put ourselves into the time and temper of this book, either Rebecca has not stood the test of time, or we should be reading something else.

Just out of curiosity, how to you feel about Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights? They're exactly the same kind of book as Rebecca. Do you judge those books from a 21st century stance and point-of-view and hate Rochester and Heathcliff for what they did to Jane and Catherine, or do you put yourself into the time of those novels and assess them as their authors intended?

Mal

. . . they were different for Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter" also, and I ADORE HESTER PRYNNE! So the time difference makes no nevermind to me. I didn't like any of the characters except Bee, and she lived in exactly the same time frame. Of course Bee was rich with a certain air of self-confidence that the main character in this book didn't have, and her society and the class structure allowed her to have that confidence. I understand that perfectly, but I still don't like it.

As for Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, I read both of those as a teen and felt just as "romantically" inclined towards them, but hated them as an adult. I get a little tired of the modern woman buying into the spiel of the man who is rich, mysterious and who has a secret, especially an older woman who "knows" that the whole premise is silly and unrealistic, and I prefer heroines who show more spunk, no matter what time they lived in. I even prefer prostitutes with spunk to this little pale "nothing" of a personality who is victimized by an SOB male. It's an unhealthy pattern even if it's a literary device, and a poor example for our young women who are gonna learn things the hard way if they buy into this. I know, because my daughter was one---reading Barbara Carland with the same "formula" and buying it, and then wondering why her life didn't turn out well. She's still wondering. So I have no love for this type of book, even though I enjoyed trying to figure out the "mystery" and was horrified that he got away with it and that this young woman actually stayed with him.

Besides, if you've ever seen the movie "The Wide Sargasso Sea" which was written as a "prequel" to Jane Eyre (I don't know if there's a book by that name since I've only seen the movie) you realize that the man has the same dark secret and then marries a wife he doesn't deserve because of his being "rich", and she's exactly the same type. Why those poor English girls thought that a dark handsome rich man would be a better deal than being poor and spunky is beyond me. I guess I just can't relate.

As a young girl I used to read all that romantic stuff and sigh those long sighs too. As a mature adult female I abhor them as they have nothing to say to me. This book and the two you mentioned are interesting from a historical class structure perspective, what the times might have been like, but other than that, no, I don't think they've stood the test of time---at least not for me. GIVE ME A HESTER ANY TIME!!!-- or even a Carmen or a Scarlett O'Hara.

I do not not like romantic books or movies. I don't think I have read many classic's unless we did in school. I like thrillers and mysteries and as a child animal dog or horse things.

I don't see any romance in this book. Sorry.

Now I do think she fell in love with him and was was in love with him.

Please, hope I did offend anyone.

Scrawler, when I read the description of the title page of that book of poems, I thought it captured perfectly the narrator's feelings re. Rebecca. She had come to see Rebecca as bold, larger than life, and in comparison she felt 'dwarfed'.

Mountain Rose, it seems to me that the narrator was afraid of "Rebecca's ghost" in the beginning, because she feared that Max still loved her. Once she began to understand what Max's life with Rebecca had really been, she was no longer afraid of that 'ghost'.

Oddly enough, I liked "Jane Eyre", but never could get into "Wuthering Heights". Perhaps it was because Jane did show some strength of character and backbone, while the hero and heroine of Wuthering Heights irritated me as being plain spoiled, selfish and egoistic. I don't like "Romeo and Juliet" because I hate to see young people destroying themselves thru' 'romantic' stupidity.

There is enough senseless grief in this world without my spending leisure time exploring the same morass. ...Babi

. . . oh well, yes, if someone is afraid of "ghosts" I guess they would react like that. But I have no sympathy for someone who is afraid of "ghosts".

But what really floors me is that AFTER she knew what he had done that she STAYED WITH HIM. That baffles me because I can't believe that anyone with any honor or self-respect would do that. And yes, the marriage was horrible and Rebecca played her "games", but murder? And like I said, if the dogs "missed" Rebecca she couldn't have been so bad that murder was justified. Dogs don't miss "evil" people, because if Rebecca was really as evil as is indicated in this plot she would have been unkind to the dogs too. Apparently she was NOT unkind to them, since the old bitch really MISSED HER. And did this sop of a man ever think that maybe some of Rebecca's actions were contributed to by him? Such as his marrying her almost against his will and then "making a deal" with her about running his precious house and being an ornament to it? Seems to me that a woman could be pretty insulted by being treated that way, and it seems to me that his house meant more to him than any people, even his wife. So I was glad the house burned down. You'd think the man would have learned something from that lesson instead of becoming "melancholy" or however he turned out and involving a young innocent in his messy life.

And that's what I mean about the characters not being well developed. We get his simpering side of how "evil" Rebecca was. Well, frankly, I'd like to hear her side. In fact, I would LOVE to hear her side.

So many great posts from all of you are making this a truly wonderful discussion, It is a real joy to read them.
Horselover, a very good assessment of Beatrice, however, we will not be discussing chapter 10 thru 15 until .the 21st. and the escapades of Rebecca are not disclosed until much, much later in the novel. I hope the background we are building in these first scheduled chapters will serve us well when we start the later chapters that really begin the more mysterious and somber side of the novel.
FrancyLou, thank you for the compliment. I did appreciate reading you enjoy my mystery discussions I do seem to favor them. .
Mountain Rose, I also think of Manderley as having a strong character of its own. Other than the ghost memories of Rebecca, for me at least, Mrs. Danvers came across as the most powerful character of them all. Her sinister behavior causes the reader to wonder where and when she will appear next. The author appeared to make her the anchor of the story.

Bill H

MENABILLY

Photo and text from the Daphne du Maurier Memories.

This is not Manderley. It is a house that du Maurier loved and lived in. She discovered it.... But I'll let you read for yourself

"During the first ten years of their marriage Daphne only spent holidays in Cornwall but in 1943 while her husband was at war she rented a house in Fowey called Readymoney and lived their with her three children.
Years before whilst out walking she first discovered Menabilly, a house belonging to the Rashleigh family. She was fascinated by the place and now she was living in Cornwall she asked the family if she could rent the property. They agreed and in 1943 she moved into the house which was to provide inspiration for much of her writing.
When the lease on Menabilly expired in 1969 she moved to another house rented to her by the Rashleigh family, Kilmarth about a mile from Menabilly. By now Daphne had lived in Cornwall for nearly thirty years and it was by continuing her writing she was able to overcome her disappointment that her husband, who died in 1965, was not with her in her last home.
Dame Daphne du Maurier died on the 19th April 1989. Throughout her lifetime she wrote several novels and volumes of short stories, five biographies and her own autobiography. The place Cornwall held in her heart and the inspiration it provided was captured in many of her books"

The link to the above graphic was supplied by BaBi. Thank's Babi

Bill H

FRANCY, "Romance" is a genre, a type of literature that does not necessarily include the type of novel you're thinking of. Romance literature is not realistic. Characters are larger or smaller than life and not representative of real people. Romance literature evokes emotion in the reader through descriptions of unrequited or failed love, great danger, emphasis on the supernatural sometimes, success or failure under very great odds. Stories of knights and princesses can fall into this category, as can castles, great houses, huge riches and mean poverty. There is usually a hero and heroine, who win or lose battles of one kind or another, real or psychological. Rebecca falls into this category of literature.

Mal

Mountain Rose, some of the text contained in your post #125 doesn't surface until the last few chapters of the novel.
Folks, I would appreciate your cooperation in adhering to the schedule. I realize it is a great temptation to jump ahead, but this will result in a hodge-podge of posts that will have the readers jumping back a forth.
There is a wealth of material found in the scheduled chapters that will provide us with so much to discuss. Thank you for your cooperation.

Bill H

I posted a link to that same picture of Menabilly, Daphne du Maurier's estate, in Post #89. I guess nobody noticed.

Mal

I always check the URLs provided.

Me, too, ANDY!

ROSE, it is Mrs. Danvers, not Maximilian, who gives the most real picture of Rebecca in a later chapter. The woman she describes is not one you or almost any woman would want to emulate. According to that descripton, if you met Rebecca, she'd walk all over you or ignore you completely. A true hypocrite, she'd smile in your face, then do what she could to tear you down when you turned your back.

You like spirited women like Scarlett O'Hara and Carmen, Rebecca was not like that. She did all she could to be at the top rung of her society through any means, and let nothing and no one stand in her way. She was well-mannered and poised, and outwardly fit all the criteria of a successful leader of society. She didn't care whom she destroyed to gain what she set out to get.

Analysts of Rebecca have suggested that there was a homosexual relationship between Mrs. Danvers and Rebecca, and that it was Rebecca's hatred of men and anyone she thought was her inferior -- male or female -- which caused her to be what she was.

Mal

I don't really want to participate and hash over a novel I consider silly. So I shall go read something more up my alley. I made the mistake of assuming that most people had read this book at some time in their lives. Sorry.

Mal, I understand perfectly what you are saying, but such a character is unrealistic to me. Human beings are not all "evil" nor all "good". They are complex creatures. I don't think the author stated that well at all, although the character certainly fit her "plot" in a contorted sort of way, with the dogs and their reaction throwing a monkey wrench into the author's works, in my opinion. Why duMaurier didn't notice that is also beyond me. It's MAJOR in the way one feels about Rebecca, especially for people who know dogs. To me it was absolutely a MAJOR error in the plot and one I can't overlook.

OK, I'm outta here. Got other stuff to read.

Thanks to all for trying to keep to the posted schedule. I have somehow missed reading Rebecca up to now, and I'm having so much fun NOT reading ahead! I know it is hard when you have read the whole book not to discuss as a whole, but it IS a lot of fun to linger over it as the schedule dictates if you haven't read it before. We haven't really learned anything about Rebecca yet except that she is dead, was loved by the housekeeper, she took an active participation in running the house, was fashionable and presumably very socially adept, and there is much pain associated with her demise. And we get to learn more on Monday!

Pamela

that young, that she feels she has to remind her listener that she is old for her age.

I think that under the surface the narrator is a control person in the making. All the self-deprecating nonsense and confidential misgivings are something to be shed bye and bye. Subservience is anathema to her, obvious in the way in which she struggles with it.

Why did Maxim marry her? There must be much more to her than seems apparent in her monologue. Mrs Van Hopper must have seen something in her, to choose her as a companion. I just can't see the narrator as a dull, mousy individual. I would credit Mrs Van Hopper with some discernment.

Maxim must have liked what he saw in her, beginning, of course, with youth and supposed physical attractiveness. She has an engaging mind, judging by her lively style of telling her story. She was so pleased, she tells us, that he would listen contentedly for hours on end, on their drives...just as we are taken with her story.

She is very unsure of herself. Well, she's young, hardly out of school. She's feeling her way around in the adult world. Which is why REBECCA is such a wonderful 'grown-up' book for adolescent girls. It must have become practically a reference book in personal relations, for the young crowd.

When she becomes unsure of Maxim's feelings towards her, three weeks into the marriage...and who can blame her for feeling suspicious about those meaningless kisses to the top of her head...she becomes determined to destroy Rebecca. And much of her story concerns itself with that Sisyphus problem.

It is my feeling that Mrs Danvers is very respectful and even wary, despite her 'sinister' manner. I can't help feeling that both Maxim and Mrs Danvers see something more in the second Mrs de Winter than what Beatrice sees, when she says that the second Mrs de Winter is so very different from the first. Soon enough it becomes apparent that the second Mrs de W has designs on remaking Manderley. But first she has to be sure about her husband.

Jonathan

"I am glad it cannot happen twice, the fever of first love. For it is a fever, and a burden, too, whatever the poets may say. They are not brave, the days when we are TWENTY-ONE. They ae full of little cowardices, litle fers without foundation, and one is so eaily bruised, so swiftly wounded, one falls to the first barbed word. Tody, wrapped in the complacent amor of approaching middle age, the infinitesimal pricks of day by day brush one but lightly and are soon forgotten, but then - how a careless word would linger, becoming a fiery stigma, and how a look, a glance over a shoulder, branded thmselves as things eternal. A denial heralded the thrice crowing of a cock, and insincerity was like the kiss of Juda. The adult mind can lie with untroubled conscience and agay composure, but in those days even a small deception scourced the tongue, lashing one against the stake itself."

Is this passage something that you would agree with? With the fevor of "first love" we are over-sensitive of what is said and done to us and as we grow toward middle-age this changes? I'd have to say yes and no. I think it depends on the personality of the person involved and what the particular background and history was for this individual. Some individuals are as hard as nails at an early age while others take a long time to get over their senitivity. I think we are seeing two opposites between Rebecca and the 2nd Mrs. de Winter.

You know one of the things I did notice was that the dog thing was incorrect. A dog would love a person of lower intelligence. Hate a person like the cousin. I expect the Mrs. Danvers would have been despised by them both. Also a dog wants to please it will go with you, not go where it wants (unless its bull headed, lol). So... the auther did not know dogs.

"I am glad it cannot happen twice, the fever of first love. For it is a fever, and a burden, too, whatever the poets may say. They are not brave, the days when we are TWENTY-ONE."
Scrawler, well done! Your post #136 has given us the age of the young woman. I thought she had to an adult in order to obtain a British passport on her own.

I suppose those of my generation--myself included-- having served in WW2 and on the home front was a little more brave at the age of TWENTY-ONE than most other generations turning that adult age.

Daphne du Maurier owned and loved Highland Terriers. She walked them every day.

Mal

Since so many of you have read the book and are eager to get on with it perhaps we should consolidate the reading schedule.
Let us begin discussing Chapters 10-thru 21, tomorrow, June 20 thru June 26, for the coming week. This will give us all much better flexibility and open up the story a little more.
Then if needed, we can use Chapter 22 thru Epilogue for closure the following week

Bill H

Scamper/Pamela- I, too, have never read Rebecca and am sticking to the schedule that Bill has given us. I truly have only read 1-9 and I keep going back to different phrases to savor. I am still astounded by the depth of DDM's description of this old house. I can’t wait ’til I read on as I shall do this evening. So far, with what everyone has offered, I have all kinds of visions of what the true story of Rebecca really is.

Jonathan, IMO Max married her because of her innocence and her ignorance. I think he was bored with the tainted, disingenuous,” rich boy” life and all that it entailed-- mostly the snobbery of the upper class, while her guileless and simple manner appealed to him.

Boy, Max de Winter is touchy. He's upset by things Beatrice says, and becomes even more so when SHE runs after the dog and tells him she went in the boathouse.

"We ought never to have come back to Manderley. Oh, God, what a fool I was to come back." Page 115

I'm beginning to think he's right. Why hasn't Danvers gotten rid of Rebecca's clothes?

What do you make of old Ben and his "I never said nothing, did I?" That was weird, don't you think?

So, SHE goes calling. All people talk about is how wonderful Rebecca was, and the bishop's wife asks if they're going to have the fancy dress ball. Du Maurier is laying a lot of groundwork here and manages to put a sense of foreboding in the reader.

Mal

MOUNTAIN ROSE, I can see that you are fond of dogs. Nevertheless, people can love their dogs and still behave horribly to people. Criminals and killers have had dogs that were loyal to them.

I do agree that we have much less protective armor when young, and are more easily hurt. One of the reasons why so few of us would really want to go back and re-live those days again. Of course, if I could go back remembering what I know now, LORD, wouldn't I make some changes!! ...Babi

Mal, you are so right when you say Max de Winters is so very touchy. He calls Beatrice unintelligent. Well, Max seems to believe everyone is. He called Mrs. Van Hopper, Beatrice, and his intended bride unintelligent. But he is the one that seems to display this trait.
I'm a bit mystified as to what role Max played in the running of Manderley. He had Frank Crawley, the agent for the estate, who seemed to run it from his office. Mrs. Danvers, the housekeeper, supervised the running of the household. Other than the times he was away in London on business-- what business-- he seemed to have plenty of idle time. Time he could've devoted to instructing his new wife in the managing of the household.
I have the impression Mrs Danvers never got rid of Rebecca's clothes because she would or could not accept the fact that Rebecca was dead. The rest of the staff also conveyed this impression. It seemed that they were all waiting for their beloved Rebecca to come walking in the front door at any time.

Bill H

OK, you convinced me guys, I finished the book last night. I got carried away reading and I couldn't put it down until THe End. Not too many surprises there. NOW, I must go back one more time and reread the beginning where the past was all behind them. The PAST is a major theme in this story.

Well what a surprise for me ...as I have said I was about 12 when I read this book ..I keep thinking I read it once again also a long time ago ..but when I got to the end it was not how I remembered it...I also think my memory of the movie helped to distort my memory of the book....

As babi said when I was young I might and that is a big might since I was a very independent girl ( with 5 brothers it does make you view men in a different light LOL ) have behaved like the second Mrs D ,,,grateful and overwhelmed by his age, his position, his wealth and ignored his grumpiness...I would hope not...and Alf I think I will review the beginning as well...anna

Maxim is taken in (your 141) by 'her innocence and her ignorance', 'her guileless and simple manner appealed to him.'

Can we believe that of her after what she has revealed of herself in the first ten chapters? I think she is in the process of deceiving all of us, if we believe everything she says. Half of what she says has no reality outside of her overactive imagination. She is the wickedest storyteller I've ever come across. what seems like a statement of fact is often just the continuation of something prefaced with 'it seemed', 'I dreamed', 'I felt', 'I thought'...etc, etc.

And all that pre-figuring and foreboding! It had no effect on Jasper. But to the girls around the campfire....Let's keep in mind that she is capable of burning the evidence after she has dreamed it up.

Max is no dolt. After the honeymoon he tries to get back into a settled life. But oh, that nervous young bride! In the end he is prepared to do anything for her peace of mind. Even fall under her spell. It seems to me only Mal realizes how gothic this tale really is. Isn't it possible that She was resisting Mrs Danver's approaches to replace Rebecca?

I feel sorry for poor Max. Twice he gets his matrimonial fingers burned. Perhaps it's as Samuel Johnson said about a second marriage: 'It's the triumph of hope over experience.' Johnson was commenting on the news that a male acquaintance had remarried. For a woman to take on the role of a second wife...now that takes something, when the ghosts appear. For me that's what the book is all about.

Jonathan

Andy - I keep forgetting to say, you were the very first one to welcome me to books!!!!

I thought I was the only one who had not read Rebecca - so I hurried and read it through. I really thought it was a twister. But I do know who set the match.

Well folks, we haven't reached the part where the match was set, how about backing up a bit.
Jonathan, I disagree with your assessment of Max falling under HER spell If anything it was the other way around. This young woman was so taken with Max she feared saying or doing anything that might offend him. The author didn't portray this young woman as being wiley or clever enough in the way you describe her. One only has to reread the first few chapters to recognize HER as being a guileless young woman. As far as we have read, how did you conclude that Max got burned for the second time in marriage? She wasn't resisting Danvers the author shows her as being frightened out her wits of the Danny. Your assessment of this young woman is quite a stretch of the imagination!
I don't think you believe that yourself. HA HA HA.

Bill H

Chapter 10 opens with Beatrice and Giles leaving after the luncheon. Even though it was raining, Max suggests a walk. This proves to be a very interesting walk.
Readers, would you please express your thoughts about how you feel on what happened on this walk.

Bill H

Chapter Six: "Of course," she [Mrs. Van Hopper] said, "you know why he is marrying you, don't you? You haven't flatterd yourself he's in love with you? The fact is that empty house got on his nerves to such an extent he nearly went off his head. He admitted as much before you came into the room. He just can't go on living there alone..."

So what do you think. Is this the real reason Maxim marries the 2nd Mrs. de Winter? Does it seem to you that Maxim is charming Van Hopper by telling her what she WANTS to hear and does exactly the same thing to his 2nd wife.

Chapter Seven:

"Suddenly I saw a clearing in the dark drive ahead, and a patch of sky, and in a moment the dark trees had thinned, the nameless shrubs had disappeared, and on either side of us was a wall of colour, blood-red, reaching far above our heads. We were amongst the rhododendrans. There was something bewildering, even shocking, about the suddenness of their discovery. The woods had not prepared me for them. They startled me with their crimson faces, massed one upon the other in incredible profusion, showing no leaf, no twig, nothing but the slaughterous red, luscious and fantastic, unlike any rhododendron plant I had seen before."

This style of writing using nature to set a mood is I think what makes Du Muir such a good writer. It's not her plot or storyline, but the way she takes things - such as "rhododendron" and gives them almost a three dimensional feel to them. To me nature - especially gardens tend to make me feel good, but these rhododendrons have the opposite affect - almost a sinister feel - setting the tone of the story.

Chapter 8: "And I noticed then that the rhododendrons, not content with forming their theatre on the little lawn outside the window, had been permitted to the room itself. Their great warm faces looked down upon me from the mantelpiece, they floated in a bowl upon the table by the sofa, they stood, lean and graceful, on the writing desk beside the golden candlesticks. The room was filled with them, even the walls took colour from them, becoming rich and glowing in the morning sun. They were the only flowers in the room, and I wondered if there was some purpose in it, whether the room had been arranged originally with this one end in view, for nowhere else in the house did the rhododendrons obtrude."

Once again Du Muir's uses the "rhododendrons" to create a mood. I also sense the "rhododendrons" might be symbolic of Rebecca, herself. After all she was over-powering herself and this was her room. Was there a purpose to all these "rhododendrons" like the narrator suggests? Or was that idea merely that of an over-active imagination?

Chapter 9: "I think it's a pity you came back to Manderley so soon," said Beatrice, "it would have been far better to potter about in Italy for three or four months, and then come back in the middle of the summer. Done Maxim a power of good too, bsides being easier from your point of view. I can't help feeling it's all going to be rather a strain here for you at first. "When Maxim wrote and told me," she went on, taking my arm," and said he had discovered you in the south of France, and you were very young, very pretty, I must admit it gave me a bit of a shock. Of course we all expected a social butterfly, very modern and plastered with paint, the sort of girl you expect to meet in those sort of places. When you came into the morning-room before lunch you could have knocked me down with a feather.

I can't help but feel that perhaps Beatrice was stating out loud what everyone else was saying to themselves. If Maxim really did love the narrator like he claimed than why marry her so soon after his first wive's death, and why bring her back to Manderly so to speak and throw her to the wolves. I, too, would have thought that Maxim in his position would have wanted a "social butterfly" as well.

Of course, this is a Gothic novel, JONATHAN. Let's see. We have a Heroine who's so full of fancies and strange imagination that she can't tell what's dream and what's reality.

A brooding Dane type with tormented, troubled brow, so to speak, as Hero.

The Wicked Witch of the West Wing as housekeeper sneaking around corners scaring Our Heroine half to death, or leading her to windows through which she could easily jump or be pushed and meet her fate.

The hoary old halfwit who appears out of nowhere and "didn't say nothin'."

The craggy, dangerous coastline and the ocean which can change in seconds from a mill pond into a threatening monster.

Fog and rain lots of it.

Blood red rhododendrons that seem to have crept in and invaded the house.

Azaleas that scent up clothes and handkerchiefs.

A great big old mansion that creaks at the seams because of the secrets it holds.

A boathouse that's full of spooky cobwebs and reminders of a mysterious past.

All kinds of not-so-subtle hints from people that Mrs. de Winter #2's predecessor was heads and tails better than SHE is.

A dog that returns to the scene of the crime.

A land agent who has to know more than he's telling.

Not only that, we have the nouveau riche commoner in the beginning who pushes Our Heroine around. Shades of Dickens and Scrooge.

The sister who delights in making her brother and probably others uncomfortable.

A love-at-first-sight romance that only hints at passionate love scenes in Italy. And the big switcheroo when the newlyweds return to England and Rebecca's ghost enters the scene to haunt them chilly.

What more could you ask of a romantic Gothic novel? What? There's more? You've got to be kidding me. I'm having trouble believing all this stuff as it is.

Mal

Now that made me chuckle...I keep comparing my reading when I was so young and today .......what a difference in how I view it ...the best is sharing the reading with everyone...that is really great!!!!!!!!!anna

ANNA, I wasn't making fun of Rebecca, just was pointing out all the things Gothic in it. My opinion of and reaction to this book haven't changed since the first time I read it. I analyze writing in a very different way now because I know more about it and have done a lot of it by now. That is what's different with me.

JONATHAN, I finally saw "House of Mirth" last night. Remember when we were in that discussion together? It seems to me that Rebecca had some of the qualities that Bertha Dorset had in that book. I've thought of Wharton's House of Mirth and Lily Bart since we began this discussion. New York Society and English Society had and have something in common. Mrs. Van Hopper had something in common with social climber Mrs. Hatch, don't you think?

We have to remember that Our Heroine had some barriers to break through before she could be accepted, not just with Society but with the servants, guests and anyone else associated with Manderley. It was not an easy role she chose.

We also have to remember that there's a lot more involved in managing an estate besides what Frank Crawley did. Only Maxim could oversee the investments that kept his wealth intact and issue the orders that kept that grand roof over his, Mrs. de Winter 2's and everybody else's head.

Mal

We must also remember that at the time this Gothic tale was written folks still believed in "love at first site" and "they lived happily ever after" fairy tales.

We've become much more sophisticated. Or have we?

Interesting talk between HER and Frank Crawley that begins on Page 125. Frank is not eager to talk about the boathouse-cottage. He tells HER that Rebecca used it for "moonlight picnics". Moonlight picnics? That doesn't sound like Maxim's style.

He also says "the boat" was moored there. SHE is surprised that Rebecca went out in the boat alone. All Frank can tell her is that "it can be very squally in the bay." He also says Rebecca often went out in the boat alone at night and came back and slept in the boathouse-cottage. He avoids answering SHE's question about how Maxim felt about that in a way that suggests to me that he knows more than he's letting on.

Frank also says nobody saw the accident, and that nobody knew she was out in the boat that night. Well, anyone who is as suspicious about old Ben as I am must think he saw something and isn't talking.

Frank also makes this interesting statement:

"I should say that kindliness, and sincerity, and if I may say so --- modesty --- are worth far more to a man, to a husband, than all the wit and beauty in the world."

This is the first time I've seen a suggestion that Rebecca was not the perfect wife, and not the paragon of everything wonderful that she's been cracked up to be.

Mal

ANDY, I believe in love at first sight, and know it happens. "Happily ever after" is a throw of the dice.

Mal

Scrawler, Thank you for that excellent post. In #152, you bring to our attention the power of du Maurier's pen and her ability to paint a picture with words. She used the blood red rhododendrons in the drive just before seeing the mansion to introduce the readers to the sinister theme of Manderley and the story that lye ahead. Daphne du Maurier could use nature to set a mood for her novel. The driveway, although not nature, itself turned out to be a sinister entity with its turning and twisting. She wrote about the tangle of trees encompassing the driveway, making the reader wish the end of it would soon be reached.

Alf, I sometimes wonder is it love at first sight or is it infatuation at first sight. Are the two indistinguishable? I suppose they are. True love has an enduring quality, if it is shared by two people for each other. Infatuation, on the other hand, is usually held by just one of the them and can be fast fleeting as the relationship lingers on. Surprise! Surprise! He/She is not what I first believed.

When Maxim's sister, Beatrice, was introduced in the novel, the author's description of her strong character and honest bluntness caused me to like her immediately. I kept wishing SHE would open more to Beatrice. I was indifferent to Giles. I suppose this is what du Maurier intended for the husband of Beatrice. But why? What reason did Daphne have for describing Giles in such an unbecoming manner? The 2nd Mrs. de Winter asked herself why did Max's sister marry him. Why indeed?

Bill H

It seemed to me, however, that She did a silent burn over that, hearing those words from Frank. I felt that she was disappointed somewhat about the impression she was making on him and others. That she did not feel that way about herself, or would rather not.

Jonathan

Is that Lorrie smiling at us over your shoulder, Bill?...

I don't know about the rest of you, but after a hundred pages, I'm confident and fearful that anything can and will happen. And the narrator, whatever we may think of her, despite appearances, is pulling all the strings in this show of interlocking fates. Whoever Rebecca may turn out to be, can there be any doubt that the narrator herself is the star of the show, the main attraction?

The 'sudden panic', the 'sudden attack of nerves', (beginning, Ch 9) are a good example of how she keeps up the tension. In one way or another she has kept the atmosphere of suspense going from page one. She introduced the supernatural when she passed through the iron gates (of the senses?), but that too she keeps under tight control. Introducing Jasper and keeping him in the picture is reassuring. Bee plays an important role as one with common sense and practical reality.

That's what makes it so curious when the narrator gets into a panic at the prospect of meeting Beatrice, her new sister-in-law. On the other hand, when they do meet, the narrator is soon saying the most unbelievable things, given what She has JUST been through. I am left wondering, for example, what to make of her reply to Bee's question:

'Well, what do you think of Manderley?'

The reader, as confidante, has just been treated to a tour of Manderley in the company of our agitated narrator, who has just pushed the panic button. Into the big drawing-room, along dark stone passages, unexpected staircases, another long corridor with dark panelling, everything wrapped in unusual silence, doors opening into dark, shuttered roooms, with dust-sheeted furniture, everything smelling close and stale, through a bay window a view of the sea, a threatening sea, pitiless and cruel.

Oh my gosh! Along comes Mrs Danvers with the appearance of a warden, and so frightening that it would make the cruel sea seem like a safe refuge.

'I've scarcely seen anything of it yet', I answered, 'it's beautiful of course.'

And later:

'Amazing woman, that Mrs Danvers', said Giles, turning to me, 'don't you think so?'

'Oh, yes,' I said, Mrs Danvers seems to be a wonderful person.'

The narrator does have a certain poise, knows how to play the game. But how nice, and harrowing, of her to be so honest with us readers.

Jonathan

I belive in love at first sight... I married him. We have been married almost 40 years (April 19, 1965).

The statement about the auther having dogs. Does not mean she knew her dogs. Her dogs might of been a status symbol. Then the butler put them in their kennel when they got back home. You never know.

I wonder about Ben. Is he evil? He is afraid for sure. Poor Maxim, even more sad for the poor She.

I wish Bee could of been closer and around more - but that would of changed the story!

Thank God, I have never allowed myself to be burdened by the shackles of the past.

This woman either lives in the past or lets her mind wander into a reverie of images, somewhere into the future that may never occur. Her thoughts belong to “yesterday”, to the past, or she has these remote, unusual visions of life that flash before her eyes.

We have witnessed, from the get-go , Max retreating into the past and Frank warns “her” not to take them all back into it again by acknowledging the fact that she is fretting about the past. “We None of us, want to bring back the past, Maxim least of all.”
The admonition went unheeded as she thought about the skeletons that caused her silent panic.

Initially she “blew away” her past and Maximillian’s as well when she first accepted the proposal. As a new bride she never questioned the past nor the future but was happy to be living in the present.

Now all hell breaks loose and the past becomes a hurdle that she can not allow herself to get over.

She chastised herself for going back to the boat house to fetch the dog “opening up a road into the past again” and became fearful that another mention of the sea would bring that expression back into his eyes.

She lives in constant fear of something and someone who is NOT THERE.

I, too, fall in love at first site, once a week. When I was younger it was daily. thank god, i've matured to that point.

JONATHAN, what a disillusionment to hear you fall in love all the time . . . .

BILL, I'm beginning to think the overgrown, dark, tangled driveway, which finally opens into light, is a metaphor for this entire novel.

FRANCY, Queen Elizabeth loves Corgis. The last I heard she owned six or eight. I feel sure that she doesn't take full responsibility for all the care of them. I think what you read about Jaspar is how Daphne du Maurier treated her dogs. I'll know more when the Nina Auerbach biography of her arrives in the mail.

Du Maurier was a snob, who no doubt treated people she thought beneath her not very well. Auerbach said that if du Maurier were alive she'd have hung up on her if she called . . . . because Auerbach is a Jew, and du Maurier didn't like Jews (or women.) Some of this shows in the story.

It's often hard for me to know, in this narrative, where the narrator ends and du Maurier begins. Remember that du Maurier did not like this book very much and did not consider it representative of her writing.

Mal

How could SHE help living in the past? That's exactly where Maxim de Winter put her (and himself) when he took his young bride to Manderley.

SHE begins to feel sorry for Danvers as soon as she hears, "She simply adored Rebecca." At that point, Mrs. Danvers becomes a human being and not just a sinister warden, as JONATHAN calls her.

Alice, the maid, looks down on the narrator because of her underwear? What a nerve! Mrs. Danvers gets low-class Clarice to be SHE's personal maid. Clarice doesn't know the difference between real lace and fake, so SHE doesn't buy new, and doesn't feel as intimidated by her maid any more.

It's obvious she doesn't think trinkets and frills are very important. Is that one of the reasons Max de Winter fell in love with her?

What is it with this young woman, though? Is she so lacking in self-confidence? It's true that she's absolutely self-centered. Everything she sees, she sees in relation to herself, thus distorting her view, and making it impossible for her to see things as they really are, or to be able to laugh at the ridiculousness of a lot of what's going on.

Frank Crawley tells HER to forget the past, but Frith tells her "Mrs. de Winter" always had the alabaster vase on the larger table behind the sofa, so that's where it's put. What Rebecca says still goes, even if she says it from the grave.

SHE acts like an obedient child who doesn't want to get in trouble and be punished. Beatrice gives her art books, and SHE knocks the cupid off the desk. It breaks, and she hides the pieces. Danvers is all upset about this. Frith comes to tell Maxim about it. SHE doesn't dare to say she did this until after Frith leaves. He is amused and exasperated by HER quite childish behavior.

Later:

"Damn Mrs. Danvers," said Maxim, "she's not God Almighty, is she? I can't understand you. What do you mean by saying you are afraid of her?"

Yes, exasperating is what SHE often can be.

Max goes away on business, and SHE feels glad to be alone. I can understand that. Anybody who doesn't run her own life and is afraid of authority figures can only let down her hair when she's really alone. I used to love it when my husband went on business trips, even if it meant I was in full responsibility for the kids and everything else. I didn't have to ask permission for anything I did. I think that's how SHE feels. It's the "When the Cat's Away" syndrome.

SHE goes to the cottage she's been told to stay away from, and finds Ben in the store. He tells her SHE's not like "the other one":

" 'Tall and dark she was,' he said. 'She gave you the feeling of a snake. I seen her here with me own eyes. By night she'd come.' "

" 'I looked in on her once, and she turned on me, she did. 'You don't know me, do you?' she said. 'You've never seen me here, and you won't again. If I catch you looking at me through the windows here I'll have you put to the asylum.'"

She gave you the feeling of a snake? Is this a little peculiar, or what? This is the Rebecca everyone admires? The woman put so high on a pedestal that all people can do to reach her is kneel at her feet?

I guess it doesn't matter if Rebecca has a mean cruel streak, Frank Crawley says she was the most beautiful creature he ever saw. That's what's important, isn't it?

Who is this mysterious stranger who hides his car so nobody will see it? Who is this man Mrs. Danvers entertains in the never-used West Wing?

The answer to this is going to prove very interesting, I think.

Mal

They say that you never know someone until you've lived with them, so the "love at first sight" can turn out to be fool's gold if you're not careful.

"We stood on a slope of a wooded hill, and the path wound away before us to a valley, by the side of a running stream. There were no dark trees here, no tangled undergrowth, but on either side of the narrow path stood azaleas and rhododendrons, not blood-coloured like the giants in the drive, but salmon, white, and gold, things of beauty and grace, drooping their lovely, delicte heads in the soft summer rain. The air was full of their scent, sweet and heady, and it seemed to me as though their very essence had mingled with the running waters of the stream, and become one with the falling rain and the dank rich moss beneath our feet. There was no sound here but the tumbling of the little stream, and the quiet rain. When Maxim spoke, his voice was hushed, too, gentle and low, as if he had no wish to break upon the silence. "We call it the Happy Valley," he said.

Here du Maurier uses nature for yet another mood. One that gives beauty and grace. And adds not only color but scent as well to paint us a beautiful peaceful picture. But, alas, is this the calm before the storm?

"Maxim did not reply. He walked at a tremendous pace, and the climb up from the beach was steep. It was very different from the Happy Valley. The trees were dark here and close together, there were no azaleas brushing the path. The rain dripped heavily from the thick branches. It splashed on my collar and trickled down my neck. I shivered, it was unpleasant, like a cold finger. My legs ached, after the unaccustomed scramble over the rocks. And Jasper lagged behind, weary from his wild scamper, his tongue hanging from his mouth."

I happen to like walking in the rain and that's good since I live in Portland, Oregon and it rains nine months out of the year, but than again there is rain and there is rain. It seems to clear the air and you can see the colors and smell the fragances stronger when it rains. I prefer summer, fall and spring rains as opposed to winter heavy rains. But I can't imagine a summer rain that was "unpleasant, like a cold finger". The other day we had a rain and thunderstorms and that was scary, but after I took shelter I felt safe. Once again the author has treated us to a passage where nature sets the tone of the book.

FrancyLou, congratulations of your love at first sight marriage. I'm certain that love was shared by both of you these past forty years. I would've been married 52-years this past May, however, the angels decided it was time for Mrs. H to be with them.
I fell in love with three girls in my high-school class. All at the same time )
Jonathan, if Lorrie is looking over my shoulder, I hope she is pleased with our memorial to her.
Alf, yes, the whole story is about the past. I believe it is what the author intended it's her way of letting us know that the past can haunt us all and take the pleasure out of our life if we allow it too.
In the case of the young woman in our story, I'm of the opinion her doubts and fears lye in the fact that both her parents are dead–I never read her mentioning other relatives–she had no one else to turn to. . Her insecurity would allow Manderley's past to invade and take control of her mind.
Her insecurity was displayed by her not wishing to displease the servants–"No, Frith, if there is a fire has been laid in the morning room, I'll go there." Her anxiety level was so high, when Max's sister and husband came to lunch, she tipped over a glass of wine.
When she made the required visit to the neighboring property owners, she was so on edge I could feel here embarrassment. I will admit that her insecurity added to the woes of the household.
This young woman was no match for the Manderley gang. Beatrice could see this and was right in saying they should stayed away several months longer. She may have felt more secure about her marriage. But then we would not of had our story.

Bill H

I think SHE's insecurity came from the fact that she didn't have any money of her own. Put the shoe on the other foot, and SHE would have acted quite differently. It's amazing what a few thousand dollars in the bank can do for self-confidence.

Mal

Bill H. Don't you think your wife and Lorrie are watching over us and laughing with us. And enjoying us enjoying this book! What fun we are having!!!!

I an sure if Lorrie and Bill's beloved are watching us they are laughing ....mostly because this is a story..fiction at its best of course. Which makes me appreciate a good author ..one who can make me believe in the story, in the characters ..so all of it seems real and we are not just discussing du mauriers writing skill.

I am intrigued with the various interpretations of "she" I feel sorry for her and keep wishing she would "listen" to me. Stop being so afraid you will do something wrong..and especially afraid you will upset your husband...and frankly if I were Maxim I would wish her to be stronger and more assertive.

It seems to me all of us are caught up in the story...we almost forget it is just that ..anna

Yes, it is a story. But I want to tell her. Get a new maid! Get the gardener to trim the trees!

Gloomy, gray, and raining here, a perfect day to read Rebecca. It's a really Gothic day.

I didn't dream I went back to Manderley last night, I dreamed I won a place in a cake decorating competition. Since I've only used fondant a couple of times in my life and have had little experience with sculpting fondant flowers and working with spun sugar, that's a real stretch for me. Can't decide whether to decorate this masterpiece with rhododendrons or stale azaleas. Maybe I'll make it black with dripping-blood red flowers?

Gosh, SHE goes back in the house after her walk to find Jack Favell and Danvers wandering around having a tete a tete, and Robert and Frith both gone. Hiding behind a door does no good, Jack finds her anyway. This "awful bounder", as Bee calls him, with the florid face and the whiskey breath and a flashy sports car hidden among the rhododendrons is Rebecca's cousin? That's a surprise.

What did you think of SHE's visit to the elegant West Wing tomb? That was eerie, wasn't it? Mrs. Danvers certainly acted weird. What is it with this woman, anyway? Got any ideas? I don't blame SHE for getting a splitting headache. If I had been in her shoes, I'd have gotten the heck out of there and headed straight for bright Monte Carlo. I mean, dealing with people like Mrs. Van Hopper would seem like a relief. Don't you think so?

Mal

" Having returned to Cornwall (from Egypt where her husband was stationed) after the outbreak of the Second World War, she (du Maurier) was to lease Menabilly in 1943 and live in it for the next 26 years, restoring it to good order before being evicted by its hereditary owners, the Rashleigh family, and having to move to its dower house, Kilmarth." (The Literary Encyclopedia)

Kilmarth
(9958 bytes)

Take away the one story section on the right of Kilmarth, and what's left looks very much like the last house my former husband and I owned in Westchester County, New York before our marriage ended. It was 11 rooms. When compared to Menabilly, this must have been quite a come-down for Daphne du Maurier.

Mal

FrancyLou- I'm with you! Fire her!!! I mean HOW much can one person take from another? Particularly if she's a servant being paid to cause grief!!!

Mal- You crack me up. I can just see you decorating away with spun sugar in your hair (and your upper lip) and icing dripping blood red down your arm. ahahahah

It reminded me to check my vocabulary words, thank you. All of my life, each time I read I have a list of "new vocab. words" that I write down and then look up when I get the chance. Fondant I had to look up, as well as "lorgnette" and the game of "Bezique." I love new vocab. words and this novel has provided me with plenty.

Jack Favell belongs to Mrs. Danvers- they're both loathesome. IS he really R's cousin or is he "her cousin-" for appropriate nomme de plume?
WHY was he there? WHY? What did he want?

the only benevolent trait I can find with Mrs. D's character is her loyalty to Rebecca. I agree, Mal, I think there are undertones of lesbianism in this woman's role. She was absolutely smitten with R- evil and demonic as she was.

I enjoy the posts here as I am trying to see what you are all seeing in Rebecca. When I was a teenager I devoured books like that. Teenager girls of that time were smitten with romantic tales of the South of France, Monte Carlo and innocent heroines marrying handsome older heroes with a dark past who owned a large mansion in the West-country.

I am sorry I don't enjoy that kind of novel so much any more. I am more critical now also and it takes away a lot of enjoyment of a very good book. Rebecca was an excellent novel, I loved it when I read it as a teenager.

I think Rebecca has the essentials of a classic. What I read on the web about the numbers of people and the extremely varied types who read this novel today only increases that opinion.

There are psychological elements in this novel that very, very few young girls or teenagers would be able to understand. The more I think about what JONATHAN has said about the narrator, for example, the more I think he is right.

Mal

FrancyLou and Anna, thank you for the warmth the both of you expressed in your post in mentioning my late wife and our Lorrie.
Mal, fine graphic of Kilmarth. thank you.
FrancyLou and Alf. I vote with the both of you as to firing Danvers right on the spot. Can you imagine any other wife putting up with the likes of that psychological disturbed woman.
There were times when du Maurier would give a different account as to the young woman's personality. In chapter 10 we find SHE could display courage and ,yes, even anger. For example: On the walk through the woods following Bee and Giles' departure after lunch. Maxim become quite upset with her for running after Jasper when the dog took off on the path leading to the cottage.
Even though he was severely agitated with her for doing this, SHE stood up to him and returned his argument with quite a bit of back bone. Yet this courage seemed to desert her when she was dealing with the servants and Danny. Max, as the owner and master of Manderley, represented more authority than any of the servants could muster. But yet du Maurier tells us how weak she could be in dealing with the staff.

Bill H

In chapter eleven, we find the how the pendulum of her courage could swing to and fro. After the china cupid was discovered missing--the one she accidentally broke by knocking it off the desk onto the floor-- She could not muster the nerve to say she was the one responsible for breaking it. No, instead she listened meekly as Frith explained to Maxim that Mrs. Danvers accused Robert of this only owning up to it after Robert left. For that moment only, I found myself disliking the 2nd Mrs. de Winter.
I believe du Maurier over did the woman's fear of embarrassment in front of the staff. Oh well, it is a story and a rather entertaining one.

Bill H.

I wish that damned dog would stop sniffing around. We might have stayed in Happy Valley forever.

But isn't that exactly what is happening to the narrator? To disturb her peace of mind, her curiosity leads her into discovering too many unpleasant things in her surroundings. Soon she becomes very uncertain of her place. The more she hears about Rebecca, the more she has to wonder if she has all of Maxim's love. And that hand of friendship extended to her by Mrs Danvers (I know that sounds wild, but so are her reactions every time Mrs Danvers appears, anyways, as it turns out, we are establishing a motive for murder)

Bill, I believe you are right in pointing out that She does show courage, and even anger, on occasion. And what an imagination! What curiosity She has about everything! What a spell she can cast over whatever catches her fancy! What irony, therefore, when, in the midst of her little argument with Maxim, She exclaims:

'Oh, Maxim, how should I know? I'm not a thought-reader.'

Does she ever stop trying to read his mind?

She is bedevilled by the situation she imagines herself to be in. All she hears is what a marvellous woman Rebecca had been...from the bishop's wife, from Bee, from Frank...'she was so clever'...'she was so full of life'...'very gifted'...'very beautiful'...and on and on. All that about Maxim's first wife. Who can blame her for feeling dismayed about her place in Maxim's world.

She pours out her hurts to Frank:

'...and all the time I keep remembering now - how it must have been at Manderley before, when there was someone there who was born and bred to it, did it all naturally and without effort. And I realize, every day, that things I lack, confidence, grace, beauty, intelligence, wit - oh, all the qualities that mean most in a woman - she possessed. It doesn't help, Frank, it doesn't help.'

To be told by Frank that She does seem kindly, sincere, and modest, would likey make her want to howl, I should think.

Jonathan

I got this "gem" at the library and thought I'd share some of it with you. "The Rebecca Notebook and Other Memories" by Duphne du Maurier:

"It is true that as I wrote it I immersed myself in the characters, especially in the narrator, but then this has happened throughout my writing career; I lose myself in the plot as it unfolds, and only when the book is finished do I lay it aside, I may add, finally and forever.

This has been more difficult with "Rebecca," because I continue to receive letters from all over the world asking me what I based the story on, and the characters, and why did I never give the heroine a Christian name? The answer to the last question is simple: I could not think of one, and it became a challenge in technique, the easier because I was writing in the first person.

I was thirty years old when I began the story, jotting down the intended chapters in a notebook. This novel set in my beloved Cornwall wuld be set in the present day, say the mid-twenties, and it would be about a young wife and her slightly older husband, living in a beautiful house that had been in his family for generations.

There were many such houses in Cornwall; my friend Foy Quiller-Couch, daughter of the famous "Q", with whom I first visited Jamaica Inn, had taken me to some of them. Houses with extensive grounds, with woods, near to the sea, with family portraits on the walls. And Quiller-Couch had told me that the owner of one of the houses had been married first to a very beautiful wife, whome he had divorced, and had married again a much younger woman.

I wondered if she had been jealous of the first wife, as I would have been jealous if my husband had married before he married me. He had been engaged once, that I knew, and the engagement had been broken off - perhaps she would have been better at dinners and cocktail parties than I could ever be.

Seeds began to drop. A beautiful home...a first wife...jealousy...a wreck, perhaps at sea, near to the house, as there had been at Pridmouth once near Menabilly. But something terrible would have to happen, I did not know what...I paced up and down the living room in Alexandria, notebook in hand, nibbling first my nails and then my pencil.

The couple would be living abrord, after some tragedy, there would be an epilogue - but on second thought that would have to come at the beginning - then Chapters One, and Two, and Three...

And so it started, drafts in my notebook, and the first few chapters. Then the whole thing was put aside, until our return to England in only a few months' time.

Once back in England I was able to settle once more to my novel "Rebecca". I am uncertain how long it took me to finish the book, possibly three or four months. I had changed some of the names, too. The husband was no longer Henry but Max - perhaps I thought Henry sounded dull. The sister and the cousin, they were different too. The narrator remained nameless, but the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, had become more sinister. Why, I have no idea. The original epilogue somehow merged into the first chapter, and the ending was entirely changed. So there it was. A finished novel. Title, "Rebecca."

The Rebecca Notebook:

Chapter I: A companion, sketch of early life. Father a doctor in Eastbourne, mother dead. Left with little money. Detail of companion's existence. Hotel dining room. Henry for the first time. The courtesy of H compared to other men.

As you can see from chapter I, du Maurier changed some things right from the beginning making the novel much stronger.

Not only does this book have some of her early short stories in it, but it also gives the "Rebecca" Epilogue as it was first written and "the House of Secrets" which is very interesting. There are also chapters headed "memories" and three of her earlier poems.

What a wonderful find, Anne. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Mal

Cupid revisited
The incident of the China cupid seemed to reveal that the 2nd Mrs. de Winter had an even greater lack of self confidence and self esteem that was revealed heretofore. Didn't this husband and wife share enough of an intimate relationship that she could have gone to her husband and explained what had happened without any anxiety?
By this time the woman had reached the point where she was badly in need of psychiatric help.
Indeed, the whole Manderley gang could have used a little of this help.
Annie, thank you for sharing that with us.

Bill H

A number of you have commented on how important it is to put yourself into the time in which the novel takes place in order to understand the narrator and her relationship to Maxim. Some of us are also reading the Jane Austen novels during this month, and the same question comes up. You feel frustrated with these women, looking at them from our vantage point. But they were so bound by custom, convention, and even the law that they had very few choices. Jane Austen turns the whole mess into a comedy of manners and solves everyone's problems with happy endings. DuMaurier looks at the darker side of these relationships, and leaves the ultimate ending up to your imagination.

Someone suggested a parallel to the story of Charles and Diana. But Charles never gave up his attachment to a former love, and probably married Diana primarily to produce an heir to the monarchy. Maxim, on the other hand, was really trying to have a new relationship.

Mrs. Danvers was fixated on Rebecca, and may have seen herself as the standin mistress of the house. She did sort of suggest that the new Mrs. de Winter might want to end her own life.

Nina Auerbach says in her biography of Daphne du Maurier:

"I treat Rebecca as an experimental byway in a long career devoted to the study and the creation of powerful men."

She states that the ghost of Rebecca overshadows and weighs down the living; that du Maurier's woman-centered novels ( Rebecca, Frenchman's Creek and Jamaica Inn ) are scarcely soothing, and none lets its heroine rest in a traditional home.

"If Daphne du Maurier writes romances at all, their achievement is to infuse with menace the lives women are supposed to want."

Auerbach says that

"Her bolder works, the male-centered novels and the tales ----- works closest to her self-awareness, her family legacy (of strong, powerful men), her vision of psychic oppression and doom ---- are ignored.

She says that du Maurier was perplexed by the popularity of Rebecca. Auerbach calls Maxim de Winter "more suavely brutal" than du Maurier's other male characters. She says:

". . . . the narrator in Rebecca is, in her mordant perspective, at least as ghoulish as Mrs. Danvers."

"Creeping around Manderley in the shadow of its past and the servants who perpetuate the past, she becomes, as Maxim scathingly says, like a 'between-maid' who doesn't know her duties."

Margaret Forster said in her biography of du Maurier:

"She herself saw it (Rebecca) as 'rather grim', even 'unpleasant', a study of jealousy with nothing of the 'exquisite love story' her publisher [and generations of readers] claimed it to be."

Du Maurier said:

"But no true harmony can exist between a man and a woman. They rub on each other's nerves. They do not work in tune."

Nina Auerbach says much more, which I've scarcely had time to read. The book didn't arrive until late today.

One thing she mentions struck me, though. Many of du Maurier's female characters contract uterine cancer. I began thinking those overgrown, bloody red rhododendrons were a kind of cancer for Manderley.

Mal

The west wing
One of the most poignant scenes in the novel was du Maurier's writing of Mrs. Danvers finding HER in Rebecca's room. She played on the young woman's insecurity by describing the room and Rebecca's belongings in a macabre fashion that would have done justice to any horror novel.
The housekeeper's morbid touching of the clothing and possessions of the deceased woman seemed to have a hypnotic result on the 2nd Mrs. de Winter. Danver's mental illness and hatred for anyone who threatened to replace her beloved Rebecca was displayed in a ghastly manner. Now even daring to compare the beauty of the 1st Mrs. de Winter to HER plainness.
"My arm was bruised and numb from the pressure of her fingers. I could see how tightly the skin was stretched across her face showing the cheekbones…"
The mentally ill Danny even dared drag HER around the room. As I read I could see this happening. This powerful encounter with Danver's should have been enough for HER to ask for the housekeepers dismissal. But still she didn't.
After, this episode with Danvers, I think du Maurier stretched the readers thoughts in believing that any wife would not report this occurrence to her husband. Certainly the young woman recognized the housekeeper was no longer mentally fit to be kept on.

Bill H

Mal, I enjoy reading the Auerbach's accounts of Daphne du Maurier. The biographer gives me, at least, the impression du Maurier was a morbid woman herself, perhaps depressed would be more descriptive.
However, Auerbach misquoted the writing of du Maurier in this book when she said:
"she becomes, as Maxim scathingly says, like a 'between-maid' who doesn't know her duties."
Daphne writes:
"I am like a between-maid." I said slowly "I know I am in lots of ways. That's why I have so much in common with Clarice…"
Maxim's comment was: "Is that not the sort of thing the between-maid is supposed to do...? A question rather than a calling.
Please believe I did not intend to be picayune, but the biographer did miss quote the author's writing.

Bill H

I think it makes the book even better.

Bill - She does try to convey to her husband how she feels about Mrs Danvers. Doesn't she at one point come right out and say 'I am afraid of her.'? And it is soon obvious to him how insecure and 'childish' his wife has become in her new role as wife and mistress of Manderley. Dismiss Mrs Danvers? Everyone else is convinced she's a great housekeeper.

I'm having a difficult time with how the narrator colors everything to fit in with her many fears and suspicions. Rebecca is quickly becoming the all-pervading rival for Maxim's love. Past is still present at Manderley. And Mrs Danvers becomes the living embodiment of that rival. As a result, the picture we're getting of Mrs Danvers is vastly distorted. She becomes for us an evil, sinister force, denying the second Mrs de Winter her rightful place, with her nerve-wracking influence.

Oddly enough, the narrator gives us lots of evidence for a contrary view of Mrs Danvers. More than enough evidence to make it clear that asking for her dismissal would be giving in to her paranoia.

As an example, I would suggest that Mrs Danvers recognized immediately how difficult it was for the new bride, in her new, unaccustomed role. How crushed She felt about the intimidating formalities of Manderley. Servants of the great and lordly themselves can seem most intimidating of all. What kinder thing could Mrs Danvers do for the frightened bride than find her a maid like Clarice? Someone to relax with.

Other actions and words of Mrs Danvers can be given different meanings than the ones given by the narrator. Without the benefit of Her imaginings, dismissal of Mrs Danvers would seem irrational. Better, I believe, if we try to understand her situation in all this.

Why she encouraged the second Mrs de Winter to leap from the window...now that will take some clever deductions and whatever else it takes to solve mysteries.

Jonathan

BILL, you are being picky. Picayune means "of little value or importance; paltry," and I know you're not that.

Auerbach quotes one hyphenated word, "between-maid", not a monologue by Maxim. I'm not going to argue with Nina Auerbach. She's a University Professor of Literature ( who knows more than I'll ever know about Daphne du Maurier and what she wrote ), or with Auerbach's editors at the University of Pennsylvania Press.

This biographer calls Daphne du Maurier "a temperamental rebel and not likeable" and goes on at some length about her anti-Semitism and dislike of women, but says:

"During her life, she (du Maurier) never spilled into confession, keeping to herself the fear and strangeness that were her own. After her death, as long as she remains elusive, she can still return." ( Just as Rebecca did. )

Mal

Why did Danvers encourage the second Mrs de Winter to leap from the window? It sounds to me as if she didn't like her "stepdaughter" at all.

"She (Rebecca) ought to have been a boy, I often told her that. I had the care of her as a child." Page 240

It doesn't seem possible that Mrs. Danvers was Rebecca's mother. Do you suppose there might have been some blood relationship, though?

The only way Danvers could keep Rebecca alive was for HER to leave voluntarily, whether she jumped out of the window or not. Mrs. Danvers couldn't bear the thought that Rebecca had died, and some usurper was trying to take her place.

Her comment that Rebecca should have been a boy reflects the author's wish that she had been born male. I think SCRAWLER posted about the fact that du Maurier called this male wish she had "the boy in the box."

Auerbach says something interesting in her biography of du Maurier. She states that Rebecca's worst fault was that she acted "unwomanly."

For those who read and discussed Carolyn Heilbrun's Life Beyond Sixty here in Books and Lit: Nina Auerbach dedicated her biography of Daphne du Maurier to Heilbrun.

Mal

We haven't talked much about the fact that Daphne du Maurier said this book is about jealousy and what it can do.

Mal

Yes, I think it is about jealousy. Not only the narrator's jealousy of Rebecca's beauty and seeming perfection, but also Mrs. Danvers resentment of this interloper who has inserted herself into the world Danvers created for herself after Rebecca's death. Danvers was almost forced to assert her authority over the 2nd Mrs. de Winter. Otherwise she would have been relegated to a menial position in a household she had come to regard as her own.

Meanwhile Maxim and the narrator have their first real quarrel during the walk on the beach. We don't really know what Maxim is thinking at this point, but his new wife and the reader can sense that he is reluctant to go near the abandoned cottage. His wife stands up to him for perhaps the first time. But when she tries to end the argument by saying she is "sick to death of the subject," Maxim resorts to a typical female stereotype--"All women say that when they've lost an argument." Still, he admits "I never go near the bloody place, or that God-damned cottage." So, of course, we begin to wonder why. What happened there? What are these memories he's avoiding? What can't he bear to talk or even think about? When they return to the house, both of them try to smooth things over, but the mystery of the cottage remains.

"So have you not decided yet what you will wear?" she said. There was a hint of dersion in her voice, a trace of odd satisfaction.."I wonder you don't copy one of the pictures in the gallery," she said.

I wondered privately why such an idea had never come to me before. It was an obvious and very good solution to my difficulty.

"All the pictures in the gallery would make good costumes," said Mrs. Danvers, "especially that one of the young lady in white, with her hat in her hand."

"Some people enjoy the variety," I said. "They think it makes it all the more amusing."

"I don't like it myself," said Mrs. Danvers. Her voice was surprisingly normal and friendly, and I wondered why it was she had taken the trouble to come up with my discarded sketch herself. Did she want to be friends with me at last?

I came forward to the head of the stairs and stood there, smiling, my hat in my hand, like the girl in the picture. I waited for the clapping and the laughter that would follow as I walked slowly down the stairs. Nobody clapped, nobody moved. They all stared at me like dumb things. Beatrice uttered a little cry and put her hand to her mouth. I went on smiling, I put one hand on the banister.

Maxim had not moved. He stared up at me, his glass in his hand. There was no colour in his face. It was ashen white. I saw Frank go to him as though he would speak, but Maxim shook him off. I hesitated, one foot already on the stairs. Something was wrong, they had not understood. Why was Maxim looking like that? Why did they all stand like dummies, like people in a trance.

Then Maxim moved forward to the stairs, his eyes never leaving my face.

"What the hell do you think you are doing?" he said. His eyes blazed in anger. His face was still ashen white...go and change," he said, "it does not matter what you put on. Find an ordianry evening frock, anything will do. Go now, before anybody comes."

The following is from the original notes from "The Rebecca Notebook":

Chapter VIII. The dance. Chooses a dress of one of the pictures. Dosen't tell Henry [Maxim]. It's to be a surprise. Great preparations. Looks very well. Goes to the head of the staircase and stands there. The sea of faces looking up. A hum. Then Henry, white-faced, his eyes blazing with anger. "What the hell do you think you're doing?" Pause, a hand on the bannister. "It's the picture, the one in the drawing room." A deathly silence. "Go and change, at once. Put on an ordinary evening frock - anything, it doesn't matter what. We won't wait for you."

Back in the bedroom, the little maid crying, trembling fingers. Sat on the bed, twisting and turning her fingers. Knock on the door. Barbara [Beatrice] comes in, swift and firm. "It's all right, my dear - put on anything, that charming white. I knew at once it was just a terrible mistake. You could not possibly have known." "Known what?" "Why, you poor silly child, that dress, the picture you copied, it was identical with the one Rebecca wore, the last fancy-dress dance at Manderley.

I was stunned. "I ought to have known," stupidly over and over again. "I ought to have known."

Of course Henry thought it was deliberate on your part - I said at once it was not, how could you have known? It was sheer bad luck you chose that particular picture.

"I can't go down now. I can't face them all." "You must; if you don't they will all think you meant to do it. I'll explain everything. Just slip down in your white frock." "No Barbara, I can't. After dinner, I'll try."

Goes down and stands by his side in the hall. The interminable evening winds on. Henry, with set white face, does not speak to her at all. To bed, and he goes to his dressing room."

The first thing I see different between the two is that in the original - there is no Frank Crawley. So the narrator has nobody really that she can talk to. Neither is he there to bolster Maxim.

Beatrice comes on very strong. She calls the narrator "you poor silly child" as if she is berating her.

The narrator seems to think she should have been clairyoyant in that she somehow should have guessed of something that nobody bothered to tell her. It seems to me that she puts a lot of blame on herself in the original narrative.

Finally, Mrs. Danvers is not the one who mentions the portrait. This truly changes the scene all together. As Beatrice suggests: "I knew at once it was just a terrible mistake." There was nothing sinster about it at all - it was only a mistake. I don't know about you, but I like the final scene better. I think the fact that Mrs. Danvers suggestion of the portrait makes the Danvers character more sinister adds to the suspense of the book.

Jonathan, you asked what kinder act could Danny have done for the woman than find a maid like Clarice. Well, she could have resigned her position and avoided an incident that may have resulted in HER suicide. But would the kindly Mrs. Danvers ever think of persuading the young woman to do that? )

Bill H

Well, she did tell Max that she was afraid of Danvers, but she never told him about what took place in Rebecca's room. The one before Danvers tried to persuade her to jump out the window.

I still believe the author stretched credibility by not having HER tell Max how Mrs. Danvers "man handled" her on this occasion. If she had, Max would have realized the mental illness of the housekeeper and presumably would have discharged Danny or tried to get mental help for the woman..

I wondered if he was afraid of Mrs. Danvers? Seems to me he really never deals with her. Maybe the exception when the cousin comes to visit. But even then not very harshly.

I love it when we get to this phase of the discussion. Everybody pulls out all the stops and questions arise like smoke from the chimney. Each of us will have our own take on the novel but in my estimation Jonathan says it all! “Past is still present at Manderley” .
I mentioned this fact in an earlier post and it abounds throughout this story. As far as Mrs. Danvers, she did live in the past with Rebecca. Rebecca’s room awaited her: her negligee was intimately laid out in anticipation nightly, the vases were filled with fresh , beautiful flowers, the clothes remained in the closet as if she were about to walk in and don a beautiful, stylish gown. I believe Mrs. Danvers “lost her mind” when she lost her love. The woman was besotted with R. Was the relationship familial, amorous, doting or just plain devotion ? Whatever it was, I don't believe will ever be disclosed but it drove her mad! As we near the end of the story there is another clue to these questions but I will not overstep the boundaries YET.

WHY did she dislike Frank so much?

I agree with Mal, and horselover that the woman hated She, she who would take over and replace her darling Rebecca at Manderley. Oh yes, resentment runs rampant. Bitterness and antipathy courses thru Danver’s blood. She mesmerized this child into nearly leaping into the sea, to follow in Rebecca’s fate, leaving the precious estate in memory of the woman whom she has deified. There is only room for one Mrs. de Winter.

We've spent a lot of time talking about what might have happened in this book if So and So had behaved in a different way. The fact is that the author wrote the book the way she did so this story of jealousy and fear would be believable, and the characters would come alive to the reader. I think she succeeded and succeeded well. It is probably a compliment to the writer that we come in and say, "Do as I say, not as Daphne du Maurier wanted you to do."

So, what do we have here, anyway? We have a young woman who marries a rich man. It is like a person who gets a job with a corporation and has trouble because she comes up against pre-established cliques and prejudices. Her boss, who owns the business, is so busy and preoccupied that he doesn't see that this new employee is cowed by her supervisor, who also works for him.

The supervisor does a very good job of keeping other employees under her under control and keeps her division running smoothly. So why should the boss fire her or make other changes?

What the boss doesn't comprehend is that this supervisor was crazy about the woman who had the job before this new person did, and anything the new girl does is going to be wrong, even just by comparison.

What's wrong with this picture?

In the first place, SHE is not an employee, she's the boss's wife. She jeopardizes her position as wife and co-partner in the business by behaving as if she works for Mrs. Danvers ( the supervisor in SHE's head ).

Why does she do this? Well, in the first place, didn't her husband, the boss, tell her the duties she'd have as his wife would be the same as what she did for the woman she worked for before she was married? Sure, he did.

Is SHE, as new kid on the block, going to throw her weight around? Of course not. SHE doesn't want to ruffle the waters before she even gets her feet wet at her new job and knows her way around, does she?

This "new employee" has had a problem in other jobs that has followed her into this new one. SHE can't keep her eye on the ball. Instead, SHE imagines all kinds of things, and this keeps her from doing her job well and doing her research with a clear, cool head and coming to correct conclusions, like how best to save her own skin.

This is the situation the author of this book has presented to us. Now what does this writer do with it?

Mal

Fear is a dominant element in this novel. Let's look at who's afraid of what.

Maxim de Winter is afraid someone is going to find out his deep, dark secret. Part of it is that his first wife, Rebecca, the loved, adored, gifted hostess and mistress of Manderley, was a thoroughly selfish woman who used people and her status, as wealthy mistress of Manderley, in a terrible way to get and do whatever she wanted. She also carried on affairs with other men in the boathouse-cottage that Maxim knew about. It would not be honorable for a man in his position to reveal what his wife really was, so he lived with it until he couldn't stand it any longer, and he shot her. Now he's not only afraid people will find out exactly what Rebecca was, he's afraid he'll be arrested for murder.

* * * * * *

Mrs. Danvers is afraid that that the new Mrs. de Winter will take over and diminish her role in the household. A good part of the reason why Rebecca was considered as brilliant as she was is because Mrs. Danvers made it appear that way. We can tell that by the way she worked to prepare Manderley for the fancy dress ball.

Danvers made sure Rebecca's parties and balls were outstanding by working her you know what off. She covered for Rebecca when Rebecca went off on her free-spirited, irresponsible, dishonest and immoral way.

Why did she do this? It wasn't just for pay. Danvers was crazy in love with Rebecca and scared to death she'd lose her.

When Rebecca died and Maxim de Winter remarried, Mrs. Danvers' world fell apart. Her reaction and motivation then were to keep Rebecca's memory so alive that the servants, the new wife, and everyone else felt as if Rebecca would walk in the room any minute.

The new Mrs. de Winter threatened this terribly. In her fear Danvers decided to get rid of her. The only way she could do this was to make SHE get out of the picture voluntarily. Danvers tried to disgrace SHE with the ballgown disaster, hoping SHE wouldn't be able to take the pressure of the consequences. That didn't work, so Danvers tried to get SHE to commit suicide. Danvers' fear made her completely and totally ruthless.

* * * * * *

The narrator's fear. Because SHE is penniless and has few, if any, credentials and little experience with the level of Society she has married into, she is afraid she won't live up to Maxim's or anybody else's expectations of her. SHE is paranoid to the point where she thinks everybody is looking at her and sees every move, every mistake she makes. She's so wrapped up in this that she exaggerates reactions of the servants and people she meets, and diminishes the fact that Maxim de Winter cared enough about what she really is that he married her.

* * * * * *

Old Ben is afraid someone's going to put him in an asylum, thanks to his treatment by Rebecca.

* * * * * *

Who else is there? Oh, I don't know. All I know is that there's fear all over the place in this novel.

Mal

Fear, jealousy, guilt and the PAST are the main themes. this is not, nor was it meant to be a love story. Maxim is particularly coool! don't you agree? There is no passion in this man at least NOT for his child-bride. He barely kisses her and the only time we read of mny intamicy on between them as husband and wife is the honeymoon period. That I believe was because he thought that he was beginning anew. His biggest error was returning to the past that he so greatly feared.

You've named several fear facets. Of course there's old Frank who feared that he' d lost R, the maids are fearful, Maxim's best friend is fearful for Maxim's state of mind. Everyone is afraid except Bea! Beatrice fears little!

Darn, I think I've just read the entire plot of Rebecca in these postings. I was trying to read with the schedule so as to not spoil the surprise. I guess it is just too hard for those who have read the entire book to remember how far we are 'supposed' to have read. Perhaps in the future we should have read the book before the postings start! The postings are great, by the way, I was just enjoying the mystery of Rebecca. Now I'm going to go finish the book before I read more postings so maybe I'll still have some surprises!

Pamela

PAMELA, BILL changed the schedule. This week we are to read to the end of Chapter 21.

Mal

We haven't given away any of the plot. We have followed the schedule as advised.

Scamper, as Alf said , I did combine the reading for the scheduled next two weeks into one week. This included chapters 10-15 and 16-21. The readers seem to be in a rush to finish so I obliged them. However, I still can't understand the rush to end the discussion. The reading schedule had been posted in the heading before this discussion begun. I do apologize if this has spoiled your reading pleasure.
FrancyLou, you ask is Max afraid of Danny. I believe Max depends on her very much for the running of the household, he knows his wife can't do it and is reluctant to scold Danny.
Yes fear driven anxiety is predominant in most of the characters in the novel.
We have reached the part when the author introduces Favel. Readers do you believe SHE should not have entered into the conspiracy not to tell Maxim that Favel was visiting Danvers?
I have to compliment all of you on these wonderful posts.
Readers, I would appreciate your posts staying within the aforementioned chapters. There are others, while not posting, may still be reading along with the schedule.

Bill H

On top of everything else that Mrs Danvers is imagined to be, or capable of, comes this 'feeling' that perhaps Mrs D is conniving with this new arrival, Jack Favell, in removing 'valuable things' from the West wing, things most intimately associated with Rebecca. How wildly impossible. More likely that things could have been removed from there only over Mrs Danvers dead body.

At any rate, the thought serves very nicely as an excuse to follow 'a sudden rather terrifying impulse to creep upstairs now to the west wing and go into those rooms and see for myself.' p163

And She drags this reader along, bug-eyed with excitement. It's almost embarrassing to admit to finding so much pleasure in reading this thriller, wallowing in the rich, suggestive imagery and the fantastic details that stick in one's mind. Who can resist the story-telling magic, as the narrator explores the hidden corners of her heart, and the mysterious corners of Manderley, the ones as melodramatic as the others.

The pictures that stay with one, as for example, the ghostly rigging of the ship's models, in the stone cottage on the beach. Cobwebs! Small masts rigged with cobwebs! How gothic can you get? Of course, all in good time, a ghostly ship will make an appearance.

Scrawler, I love your quotes from the book. It seems inevitable that the narrator has a fondness for painting. There must be a lot to paint or sketch at Manderley, someone tells her. And success at it demands composition, whether with paints or with words. She is sans pareil at it.

One certainly gets the picture, and more, with something like this, from Ch 12, p112:

'That rusted grate knew no fire, this dusty floor no footsteps, and the china there on the dresser was blue-spotted with the damp. There was a queer musty smell about the place. Cobwebs spun threads upon the ship's models, making their own ghostly rigging.'

Just a few lines from from a longer sketch full of things and mood. The writer was obviously swept along by her own lively imagination, not even caring about the incoherence of what she is talking about. The last sentence in the quote makes one smile over her creative enthusiasm. Unconsciously, however, She is struggling with syntactical problems, it seems to me. 'Ship's models' doesn't seem right somehow, after already having used 'models of ships' half a dozen lines before. This needs clearing up, I can imagine Her thinking. So, twenty-five lines farther along, She comes back to it with 'spun cobwebs on the model ships.' And this time around she also has the cobwebs spun, and not having spun themselves.

Nitpicking? Certainly not. Just admiration for a writer's versatility. But Mrs Danvers dishonest? No more than She.

Jonathan

After repeated evidence of hostility on the part of Danvers, I am at a loss as to how She could have failed to be suspicious of any 'friendly' suggestions...like a costume for the ball. She is so painfully anxious to please, so hopeful that all the nastiness will go away and everyone will adjust and get along together. Here is another fear, MAL... She afraid to face the truth.

As for Jack Favell, he is linked with Danver's beloved Rebecca. As an ally in her war against the second Mrs. DeWinter, I think she would happily give him anything he wanted. Danvers is obsessed with ridding Manderley of She, IMO, and it has become all or nothing in her mind.

..Babi

BILL, it would help if you'd post the schedule change in the heading of this page, along with some questions, perhaps, that give us an idea which part of the book you'd like us to discuss.

Thanks!

Mal

"Why don't you jump?" whispered Mrs. Danvers. "Why don't you try?"

The fog came thicker than before and the terrace was hidden from me. I could not see the flower tubs any more, nor the smooth paved stones. There was nothing but the white mist above me, smelling of sea-weed dank and chill. The only reality was the window-sill beneath my hands and the grip of Mrs. Danvers on my left arm. If I jumped I should not see the stones rise up to meet me, the fog would hide them from me. The pain would be sharp and sudden as she said. The fall would break my neck. It would not be slow, like drowning. It would soon be over. And Maxim did not love me. Maxim wanted to be alone again, with Rebecca.

"Go on," whispered Mrs. Danvers. "Go on, don't be afraid."

Now compare the final verson (above) with the verson du Maurier wrote in her notes.

Chapter IX: The next morning. Aftermath of the ball. I could not face the guests. Sent a note down. And they all go away. Verbal message from Henry, "Gone up to London." The silence of the house. Potters through the woods, utterly lost and miserable. It should have been so different. Henry made a terrible mistake in marrying me, that's evident. He wanted to be alone with his memories, and I had intruded upon him and Rebecca. Mrs. Van Hopper had been right. I was making a mistake, she had said, "I don't think you'll be happy." Rebecca still dwelt in Manderly, and she resented me. Overwrought and hysterical. I went and unlocked the door in my desk. I took out the snapshot of Rebecca. I was very calm. I knew what she wanted me to do. It was as though she was sitting by my side. "We don't want you here, we don't want you. Henry wants to be alone with me."

I sat down at the desk and wrote to Henry. The letter. Then I went upstairs and took the bottle of Lysol from the bathroom cupboard.

Now what do you suppose the narrator was going to do with that bottle of Lysol? I doubt that she was going to clean the bathrooms. Once again it is not Mrs. Danvers but the ghost of Rebecca in the over-active imagination of the narrator that was trying to get her to commit sucide. Personally I like the final version. Ghost vs. real sinister person. Humm! No contest in my book!

When she talks about Henry or Max having made a terrible mistake in marrying her these words come out of Max's mouth in the final story and I think they make him more human - I got the impession that when he said these words he felt sorry for putting his 2nd wife through all that happened. If I remember correctly, he says she deserves someone her own age etc.

One thing I found interesting though was that in the original version its the narrator who makes up her OWN mine to commit suicide. No real person pushes her towards this action - only her over-active imagination creates the possiblity. I don't know about you, but I would think that it takes some guts to try and commit suicide. Now in the final version I don't see the narrator as having that much gumption. What do you think?

Bill,

I'm sorry but I must have missed the schedule change. The original schedule is still in the heading, and I somehow didn't ever see any message about a schedule change. Can you point me to it?

Pamela

Scrawler,I think you hit the nail on the head,"class"it took over up until just after the war, when the book was written,Max wasnt unique just a snob ,and a bore like he Deemed he was so great giving poor 'monkey face a life she never dreamed of.I think she was nameless to accentuate the fact how insignificant she was compared to ,even Mrs Danvers,I am afraid weak characters annoy me,she should have pushed mrs Danvers out the window,she was a shrinking violet.gladys

You know Daphne du Maurier was a very good writter! I just realized she tricked us again! Of course. The dog Jasper was just another trick to through us off the scent. Make us think Ben was a bad guy. Boy I was thinking how stupid du Maurier was, lol (and it was me, lol).

Just wonderful speculations about what really happens at Manderley, when a new Mrs de Winter comes on the scene.

Congratulations again, Bill. Don't change a thing. The discussion is rattling along so merrily. If posters are all over the place, it's only because they have picked up on the narrator's style. She's all over the map, all the time. As Andy pointed out a while back. Back and forth in time. In and out of reality. It's a large canvas. How can one not try to bring clues in from everywhere. The whole thing is turning out to be a great memorial to Lorrie.

Like the rest of you, I'm shaking my head over all the conflicting clues. The 'repeated evidence of hostility' mentioned by BaBi in 210, is matched, imo, by just as much evidence that Mrs Danvers is trying, sincerely, to fit the new Mrs de Winter into the scheme of things at Manderley.

'Why don't you jump? Why don't you try?' - Scrawler, 212.

That's not necessarily encouragement on the part of Mrs Danvers. She has a tight grip on the suicidal narrator's arm. Mrs Danvers is not pushing. She is restraining. She is in fact, in my opinion, making certain that She does NOT jump. So the questions, 'Why don't you jump?' and 'Why don't you try?' may well be an attempt at getting information, at getting into a confidential relationship with Her.

Gladys!!! How delightful to have you drop by. I was getting impatient, waiting to hear your views. I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. Max isn't a snob. In fact, I believe all the men in the story are more or less peripheral. The action is among women, dead or alive. I'm also sorry that you see Her as a shrinking violet. She's threatened by a ghost who is isolating her. She's in a terrible predicament. Give her a little time. She engineers quite a strategy before it's all over.

Jonathan

I have to comment even if I am not very enamored with this novel. What I like best are the posts about the novel. Please bear with me.

As the narrator SHE is articulate. As SHE, she is tongue-tied and unable to function in the world and the author switches from one to the other at the drop of a hat. When SHE is the narrator, nothing is forgotten of the elements describing her state of mind or other physical aspects of where the action is taking place. In chapter 14 where the narrator describes the chilling scene with Mrs. Danvers in the West Wing, the author wants the reader to keep thinking that SHE is a dumb, silly young woman. I can’t see anybody believing that someone can be so aggravatingly dumb and stupid.

SHE is a mouse “I was like a dumb thing”, page 159 when SHE is with Max and Mrs. Danvers, but when she becomes the narrator, SHE is suddenly brilliant -- Ah! Give me a break. He says, as they are discussing the upcoming Ball: page 194: “Bee will put you in your place, that’s one comfort.” Bringing her down below the servant’s level, more like a pet, in fact he constantly petting her on the head. He has never shown SHE the least little mark of love or even affection and I can’t believe it is because he is sad and hurt at what happened in his life. Max acts like if he has always been a conceited and arrogant a..,

Frank is the only one who cares about SHE, Mrs. Danvers and the socialites who gravitate around Marderley want to keep the image of Rebecca alive because she was beautiful and flamboyant and she provided glamour to Marderley. She gathered her allies with bribes and praise to keep her image but I fail to see anybody really loving Rebecca.

Is there a protagonist in this novel? The narrator - disguised as SHE without much conviction - is weaving a web that will bring the reader to a surprising conclusion, the mark of a very good mystery novel writer.

D du Maurier revealed herself as she writes about the faults of a world she is familiar with but she forgot to show any qualities in that world, is it because there are none?

Eloïse

Everything appears as a dual contrast in this story. There’s two of everything. There are two Mrs. De Winters. There are two Rebecca’s- one who is dead and one kept alive in deified memories. As Eloise aptly pointed out, there are even two SHEs- one the protagonist and one the narrator. There are two Maxims- one gentleman who lives in fear, melancholy and guilt and the other Maxim who lives half heartedly with She, the chosen bride. There are two houses at Manderley, the beautiful, spacious mansion and the small cottage that R chose to inhabit often.

The two Mrs. Danvers are present- one who acts as a curator in a museum showing off Rebecca’s beautiful possessions and the REAL Mrs. Danvers who intimidates and frightens the “2nd Mrs. De Winter."

two by two

FrancyLou, Not only was du Maurier tricking us but I feel she was tricking herself all through the novel
Jonathan, I marvel at your imagination of Danny trying to prevent SHE from jumping out the window. Danny wanted this poor woman out the window and down on the rocks so bad she could taste it. "Go on." whispered Mrs. Danvers. "Go on, don't be afraid." SHE doesn't jump because of an event that shocked HER out of hypnotic state. However, we all have our own way of interpreting incidents.
Eloise, I agree with you. I'm not sure du Maurier knew what way she wanted to go with HER. As you say, in her own thoughts she was brilliant, but while speaking with others she was as quite and dumb as a church mouse. At times, I wonder if this confusion was in the author's mind. And Maxim did nothing to bolster his wife's confidence. The example you gave of him telling her to depend on Bee pointed this out to the readers.

Bill H

Babi, I too was appalled that SHE accepted Danver's help in finding a gown for the ball and having it made in another location. And shocked that she entered into a conspiracies with Jack Favel not to tell "good old Max" that he visited Manderley.
If, as pointed out, SHE believed this was pleasing Daanny what a state of depression the narrator must have been experiencing to be so confused.

Bill H

Let's talk about the ball a bit. What went through your mind as SHE came down the stairs?

Bill H

Jonathan,I guess I see it from a womans point of veiw.I love the book

was quite young when I read it,that also makes a difference,I loved the handsome hero,and cried almost, for poor 'monkey face,I saw the movie over and over.I cant believe I see it through different eyes.I guess

a touch of envy,creeps in and makes you think'If I was in her place I would make them sit up.mrs Danvers was a witch ,at one time .

now especially,with your words, she was may be trying to get into her confidence,she would be veiwed as having a srange attraction to women.

that again is the times we live in.gladys

JONATHAN, it takes a considerable 'spin' on the scene at the window to see Mrs. Danvers as attempting to help and befriend She. Sometimes I think you like to throw a bit like that in just to make waves. <smile>

Your comment about the men in the story being "peripheral" did give me pause, however. On thinking about it, I believe you are right. Even Max, the 'male lead', never is quite as real and vivid as the female trio. Quartet, if one includes the hearty Bea. ....Babi

Glayds, I agree with your opinion of Maxim being a snob. To the manor born so to speak. He showed this from the very first pages on. He was born in to the upper classes. and his teachings and training inadvertently instilled this in him. Bee displays the same trait, albeit,not as much as Max.
I also agree with your assessment of SHE when you proclaimed her to be shrinking violet. If this trait did not exist in her, she would not be having the trouble with Danvers and the rest of the staff.
Jonathan says "She engineers quite a strate…" Well, I have read this book three times. Can't find any strategy she engineers.
Jonathan, you say you bought copy of this book for a buck. Are you sure all the pages are there?
BaBi, it does take a considerable spin on the scene at the window to gather Danvers is trying to help befriend her.
If SHE had even attempted to jump, I'm sure our Danny would have relaxed her iron-like grip on her arm. Perhaps even given her a bit of a nudge to help her out )
Maybe all the pages are not in the book Jonathan bought for a buck.

Bill H

Once I realized the tricks that were played on the reader I was very "pleased" to have read this book. I have asked the library to send me more books by her. If this is her worst. I want to see her best!

FrancyLou, it is hard to believe but this book, "Rebecca." was awarded the distinction of being "The Book of the Century."

Bill H

Oh Gosh - I hope I did not miss it.

yes the ball!1when SHE came down in that dress,I thought he could have behaved less dramatic,and could have at least soothed her a little,what bad manners,on his part,of course it was the writing of the times.It was considered natural for men to be the master,the worse he treated her added to the exitement.I can quite definately

see the similarity of Wuthering hights and Jane Eyre.gladys

I think it is wise to go back to the beginning of this novel, which takes place in the present. Then we'll remember that the woman who is narrating this book is years older in many different ways than the young woman she talks about.

The narrator tells us in the very first sentence: "I dreamt I went to Manderley again. What she remembers and what she describes are in the form and shape of a kind of surreal dream.

I also think it's a good idea to go back to the beginning of the story and read what Maxim de Winter is now.

The much older narrator tells us on Page 4 that the house was a sepulchre, that her and Maxim's fear and suffering lay buried in the ruins, and there would be no resurrection.

She says, also on Page 4:

"I would think of the blown lilac and the Happy Valley. These things were permanent; they could not be dissolved. They were memories that cannot hurt. All this I resolved in my dream, for like most sleepers I knew that I dreamed. In reality I lay many hundred miles away in an alien land, and would wake, before many seconds had passed, in the bare little hotel bedroom, comforting in its very lack of atmosphere. I would sigh a moment, stretch myself and turn, and opening my eyes, be bewildered at that glittering sun, that hard, clean sky, so different from the soft moonlight of my dream. The day would lie before us both, long no doubt, and uneventful, but fraught with a certain stillness, a dear tranquillity we had not known before. We would not talk of Manderley, I would not tell my dream. For Manderley was no longer. Manderley was no more."

The narrator has wakened from a very bad dream, and is awake when she tells us about that dream.

Mal

Are the wonderful posts. Like Gladys I read this book when I was young ..still a preteen ..and like Gladys I thought it such a wonderful book. "She" seemed to be right but at that time in my life didnt I think men were supposed to be like Maxim? I could see myself as SHE ..and could feel a great sympathy for her. Now SHE just annoys me Danny I remember thinking she was EVIL...disturbed and not someone I could relate to. I remember disliking her intensely. How could she be so unkind to this poor , sweet,young woman?

Time passes and I see a vast difference in my thinking. In my reading.Then I just enjoyed a book , now I want to disect it . discover the many nuances. The relationships, the authors reasons, and it both adds something to my reading and also takes something away.

I think that may be why I read more non fiction than years ago..but it is special to go back and allow the fear, the feeling of impending doom , the dislike for Mrs Danvers etc to take me along ....and all the posts only adds to my pleasure.

Jonathan your posts are especially interesting ..I almost laugh when I see you givng Mrs Danvers a kind heart and caring way...now I think you would be a good juror for the defense ..always seeing another point of view..giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt ...it surely makes the reading of the posts interesting. I always think What does Jonathan have to say. <VBG> anna

Both Daphne du Maurier and her biographer, Nina Auerbach, have said that Rebecca is not a romance and it is not a love story.

Hitchcock (Sir Alfred Joseph Hitchcock) made a movie of this book, which emphasized a kind of love story which is impossible to find in what du Maurier wrote. Du Maurier was afraid that the Hitchcock movie led people away from the true meaning of this book, which she said is a "psychological study of jealousy."

Auerbach says:

"The males in her three best known so-called romances --- Jamaica Inn, Rebecca and Frenchman's Creek --- overwhelm their female prey, but they have no stories of their own. They strut about and own things, but . . . . they are not alive on their own terms."

For anyone who is interested, Nina Auerbach says du Maurier's male-centered novels are better than the three female-centered books mentioned above, and that Daphne du Maurier's finest book is The House on the Strand.

Mal

Mal that is certainly true but wasnt apparant to 12 year old ...now I see it in a totally different light. Age does have its advantages. anna

Glayds, Maxim's behavior as SHE came down the steps to greet the guests of the Manderley ball was just typical of Maxim. This how Mr. de Winter reacted to everything that displeased him. Max almost never displayed the sensitivity to his new wife that her insecurity cried out for. He never seemed to recognize that she needed his support and love.
Anna, I enjoyed reading your post. I find myself doing the same whenever reading a novel for the 2nd time. I too find myself questioning why the author created a character or occurrence. I feel du Maurier created the tormented Danvers in order to add to the specter of Rebecca. Without Danvers and her twisted mind would the memory of Rebecca have been as strong to the reader?
Anna, instead of being a good juror, I believe it would be more correct to say that our Jonathan is playing the devil's advocate for the mentally ill Mrs. Danvers. Now that does add another dimension to our discussion.

Bill H

Mal, I read the "House on the Strand" In this story du Maurier writes about time travel. I found it very entertaining. Thank you for bringing it to my memory.

Bill H

Thanks, Eloise

Your post #217 was the first of my 'unreads' to appear, when I came online just now. I can't go on until I've told you how much I enjoyed reading your comments. Your ideas helped me, and will likely help others, to put the pieces together in this puzzling mystery.

What you say about Maxim never having shown Her the least little mark of love or even affection, is right on. I believe it's close to being the mainspring of the narrator's actions, and Her sense of self-worth. That is just what is bothering Her. She makes it clear that She is disappointed with the kisses on the top of Her head, and the like. She obviously wants more; but only after She gets to feel that Rebecca has always had, and still has, a love that She may never know. How to replace Rebecca in Maxim's heart...that is the challenge.

What did She know about love until She got to Manderley? At one point She talks about having a father, a brother, and a son, in Maxim. Nothing in there about a husband. Has She ever loved HIM, Maxim? When they first met, and for a while thereafter, perhaps even yet, She imagined a role for him...the dark, mysterious, medieval gentleman. For a atart he was the hero with the convertible who rescued Her from the ogre Van Hopper.

And that brings me to another good point you make. She is one person as narrator, and another, when She takes Her place among all the others in Her story. But I would like to make the objection that She never stops being the narrator, and as such, all the others are Her creations. This is a first-person story from cover to cover. It was brilliant of du Maurier, not to give Her a name. Du M admits that it became the literary technique that kept her focused. On what? The consistent subjectivity throughout the book?

And far from being the 'dumb thing' She seems to think She is, She is really very clever in the way She hides Herself so well from so many readers. The real Herself. Is she nameless because she is a nobody? Or nameless because She is an Everywoman. All those millions of young readers, with whom do they identify, when they find themselves entranced in this novel?

Back to the posts!!!

Jonathan

I'm all for exposing and finding snobbery abominable. As long as we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I mean that enviable self-assurance that some people are blessed with, or acquire with noble birth and wealth and whatever.

Jonathan

Is the narrator a "nobody" or an "everybody"? Did du Maurier want us to relate to the narrator as if we too were the 2nd Mrs. de Winter? I don't know about anyone else but I don't have anything in common with the 2nd Mrs. de Winter. I find I'm closer to Rebecca. Rebecca was the "modern girl" in the 1920s-1930s. She was independent. She went sailing alone and went up to London to her own flat. She didn't need Maxim or any other male for that matter. What did the 2nd Mrs. de Winter do by comparison? She sat around Manderley be-moaning her situation. Maxim doesn't love me etc. Creating in her own mind with the help of Mrs. Danvers images of the dead first wife. Does anyone else see the novel as a satire of the day (1920s/1930s)concerning marriage and love in the upper-crust society?

Yes scrawler,I see it as the sattire of the 20,s and 30,s and even now re Charles and dianne,the upper crust will always be the upper crust, in the beginning ,dianne reminded me of HER,we can only imagine what SHe would have been like,after rubbing shoulders with the upper crust another Rebbeca?gladys

Some good points and I can see where you are coming from ..as I have said when I was 12 I could imagine myself "SHE" but by the time I was her age 22? there is no way I would have behaved as she did. My mother was a woman before her time..she raised all of us to be independent ..my brothers were given instruction in what was at that time called "Woman's Work" and I learned to paint and repair and fix things.

I am not sure du maurier thought her readers would disect her characters as we have. Mal I believe said du maurier thought she was writing a story of the effect of jealousy. I would agree that you could say that but I think for the modern reader there is more ..most women I know my age are independent ..even my aunts from years ago widowed were independent ..as "hogs on ice" as the old saying went..my father earned the finances to support the family but it was my mother who made the decisions as to how that money was spent..and he was 15 years older than my mother ...were women from the "upper crust" raised differently? perhaps it was the men who were raised differently? just thinking. anna

Jonathan as the Devil's Advocate ???Yes I can see that ...and he does it well ..thanks Jonathan ....anna

Somehow it's hard to imagine the marriage between Maxim and the 2nd Mrs. de Winter as having been consummated. The narrator seems to be such a sexless being. But Rebecca, despite her faults, appears to have had a passionate relationship with Maxim at the beginning of their marriage even though their passion did not last. The narrator says at one point that "I would be content to live in one corner of Manderley and Maxim in the other as long as the outside world should never know." A strange attitude for a recent bride who claims to love her husband.

The episode of the ball gown brings up a number of questions. One is: How well could Maxim know his wife if he thinks she would deliberately play such a cruel joke on him? Why would Maxim not dismiss Mrs. Danvers himself after finding out that she was responsible for the choice of costume? Is guilt and fear of what she may know responsible for his putting up with this woman? What does Mrs. Danvers know that leads her to believe that Maxim would have such a violent reaction to the dress Rebecca wore at her last ball?

It seems to me that if Daphne du Maurier had intended this book to be a satire of its time that at least one analyst or biographer would have mentioned it. I can't find one that does.

There's a difference in age among the participants in this discussion, as much as 15 or 20 years. It shows in relation to talk about how independent we women were and are.

Though raised by an aunt who worked outside the home all her adult life, I was a stay-at-home wife, as all my friends and acquaintances were. I was not allowed by my husband to drive a car, so I didn't get a drivers license until I was over 40. I was older than that when he gave me $600 to buy myself a car.

I didn't know real independence until I was divorced after 25 years of marriage and living in far, far humbler circumstances than I'd had when I was married.

I don't think I was untypical for women my age. My husband held the purse strings and made the rules and the decisions, and I followed them, if occasionally very reluctantly. ANNA, you've been an exception. SCRAWLER, you're a lot younger than I am -- I'll be 76 on Friday. The attitude about men and women and their roles wasn't much different for me from what it was when du Maurier published this book.

I see no comparison between SHE and Princess Diana. SHE was penniless. Diana's family had money, and so did Diana in her own name. There were few people around whose mother was one of the richest women in the world, as Prince Charles's mother is. Diana wasn't royalty, and a free-spirited, very, very immature female like her didn't take to the great restrictions and demands placed on royalty.

Diana was far sicker than the narrator of this book. SHE may bite her nails, but she isn't bulimic and anorexic and all screwed up the way poor Diana was, nor does she live in full view of the eyes of the world. Worldwide fame can be a terrible curse and hard to bear. SHE's fame as Max de Winter's wife was extremely small by comparison.

Mal

Put yourself in Max de Winter's shoes when SHE walked down the stairs in virtually the same outfit Rebecca had worn at the previous fancy dress ball. I can well imagine that he thought he was seeing the ghost of the woman who had been the torment of his life.

How would you feel to see the sweet, innocent woman you married, the exact opposite of your first wife, appear dressed like that with the same look of triumph that Rebecca had on her face? Wouldn't you react? Wouldn't you be so upset and distraught that you weren't able to think straight? Wouldn't you insist that your second wife go upstairs and change her clothes in a hurry before guests who had seen Rebecca dressed like that arrived? I suggest that you would.

Think about SHE. She runs upstairs, finds the corridor deserted and the door of the west wing open. There stands JONATHAN's kindly Mrs. Danvers wearing the face of an "exulting devil." Du Maurier has followed the most dramatic scene in the book so far by one almost of terror. What a writer!

Where do you see Rebecca telling Maxim that Mrs. Danvers was responsible for her wearing the same gown Rebecca had worn, and where do you see his reaction to that?

On Page 266, after Maxim tells SHE that he shot Rebecca, he holds her in his arms, kisses her in a way he'd never kissed her before, and says, "I love you so much. So much." Free of his terrible burden, Maxim is finally able to be himself and everything SHE has wanted. Shocked, much as he was when he saw her in the Rebecca ballgown, SHE is unable to respond. He interprets this as a negative reaction. There's an interesting parallel here, don't you think?

Mal

Before you come in and ask me why I didn't get a drivers license when I was a teenager or in my 20's, I'll say you can't drive a stick shift car with a paralyzed left leg. Automatic shift automobiles were not commonly manufactered until 1948. At that time they were too expensive for my family ever to buy one.

Mal

But also his first love, Mal. Has he ever, really, stopped loving Rebecca? It would be interesting to explore the torment that he experiences when he sees that vision from the past. His reaction is passed off as anger, or a loss of temper. Somehow I feel it was much more than that. She tells us that he never came to bed that night. A suspicion in my mind suggests that he may have spent the night in the west wing, in an old familiar bed.

I think you're right, Mal. This whole thing is too grim to be satirical.

Gladys, the relationship between Diane and Charles was just about as macabre as this. A very suggestive comparison, with lots of pros and cons. Jealousy is the devil in all this. Along with all the other hobgoblins of the mind.

As interesting as the book has been, now it gets somewhat more exciting.

Jonathan

See he finally has a wife (a partner). Not a toy (dog to pet).

You are right about age difference. I was born in 1943. Even though I am handicapped my parents "made" the school take me in regular school. Made me learn to drive at 14 (back roads). (My mother did not learn until about 5 years before me.)

I have to admit that many things I still "bow" to my husband. I do not invite a man into the house unless there is someone home with me. My dog would kill anyone who tired to harm me, it was the way I was raised.

Age differences play such a large role in Her difficulties at Manderley. Everyone around her is so much older and experienced than She. Can one blame Her for feeling at a disadvantage. She finds herself in a strange milieu. There is so much coming at her, so quickly. It's her alert mind that I find so attractive. Including her inclination to imagine herself into the lives of others. What she doesn't reveal about herself and the situation she finds herself in, in such a melancholy passage as the one in which she reflects about having tea with Maxim's senile grandmother. Page 183, Ch 15.

'...The nurse was thumping the pillows and arranging the shawls.

'Maxim's grandmother suffered her in patience. She closed her eyes as though she too were tired. She looked more like Maxim than ever. I knew how she must have looked when she was young, tall and handsome, going around to the stables at Manderley with sugar in her pockets, holding her trailing skirt out of the mud. I pictured the nipped-in waist, the high collar, I heard her ordering the carriage for two o'clock. That was all finished now for her, all gone. Her husband had been dead for forty years, her son for fifteen. She had to live here in this bright, red-gabled house with the nurse until it was time for her to die. I thought how little we know about the feelings of old people. Children we understand, their fears and hopes and make-believe. I was a child yesterday. I had not forgotten. But Maxim's grandmother, sitting there in her shawl with her poor blind eyes, what dis she feel, what was she thinking? Did she guess that we had come to visit her because we felt it right, it was a duty, so that when she got home afterwards Beatrice would be able to say, "Well, that clears my conscience for three months."

'Did she ever think about Manderley? Did she remember sitting at the dining-room table, where I sat? Did she too have tea under the chestnut tree? Or was it all forgotten and laid aside, and was there nothing left behind that calm, pale face of hers but little aches and little strange discomforts, a blurred thankfulness when the sun shone, a tremor when the wind blew cold?

'I wished that I could lay my hands upon her face and take the years away...'

I can't go on. It's too melancholy.

The more I analyze this novel, the more I feel that this book is not about Rebecca or the narrator, but about Maxim. From beginning to end this book really centers around him. Who is Maxim anyway? He is a man in conflict that is for sure. He has his secrets but so far he hasn't shown his true colors. The first time we see him get angry is at the ball when he confronts the narrator. Communication is obviously at the heart of this story along with jealousy and fear. And communication in a marriage can be devasting. How would you feel if you suspected that your husband was keeping secrets from you? But more importantly how would the husband feel if he knew he had secrets and couldn't or wouldn't express them to his wife? Perhaps in today's world communication has come full circle to the point that we tend to let it all hang out - where we probably should keep some secrets to ourselves. But as we have seen lack of communication can sometimes led to jealousy and fear. If Maxim had been honest and told the narrator right from the beginning what he'd done, we would of course had a different story, but I can't help think that the characters would have been able to work it out between themselves. After all the narrator wasn't exactly honest either. She too had her secrets.

Horselover, I don't think SHE ever told Maxim or Bee that it was Danvers that had suggested the dress she wore for the ball. Maxim would have dismissed the housekeeper immediately if SHE had told him.
And she never told her husband that Jack Favel had visited Danny at Manderley, let alone explaining to him that Mrs. Danvers made sure every one was out of the way when Jack did visit her.
It was this lack of confiding in her husband and Bee that resulted in most of her mental anguish. I sometimes feel the author over did the woman's reluctance to confide in someone. Bee would have been a good choice. But then we would not have had the story as we know it.

Bill H

I have never thought this story is about the narrator. I have thought (and think) this book is about Rebecca and the effect she has on every single character that appears in this novel.

Mal

Rebecca since that is the title one could assume the story is about Rebecca. The longer I think about this the less I believe the story was about her. duMaurier had to call it something and she seemed to drive the story.

It is my opinion this is really as story about all that is bad about human nature. Mrs. Hopper is the only one who is true to what she is.. An arrogant, ugly American at its worse…she has hired a companion ..Nothing altruistic about her. She expects the companion to be at her beck and call ..To do all the onerous tasks and treats her like a paid servant. There is nothing kind and thoughtful for this young girl . She is an employee and “SHE” is employed. It is neither what “SHE” expected nor what she wanted from life.

Maxim arrives. With a deep secret. A man who is of the aristocracy, wealthy with an inherited baronial mansion. He is lonely and here is a young girl, seemingly innocent whom he can marry and move on with his life. It is his needs that move this romance forward. He is glad she is a bit awkward ..So much the better. She needs to leave Mrs. Hopper’s employ. Can you imagine how it must have pleased her ? No marriage to some man whom she most likely would have to support, a fantastic home she has fancied from her youth where she will now be mistress of. A widower whom she is sure her youth can charm.

Mrs. Danvers a woman who helped raise a beautiful selfish child. Like a mother who lives through a beautiful daughter she has been Rebecca’s confident, hiding her secrets. Managing a magnificent household with servants at her command. She has lived in fear that a 2nd Mrs. D would take all of that away from her. If the 2nd Mrs. D had been like Rebecca I think Mrs. D would have wormed her way into her affection. BUT this one is gauche. Young with no idea of what to do and a husband who treats her no better than a pet dog. How can Mrs. D like her.?

The servants , even Mr. Crawley think first of how Rebecca was.. beautiful , ignoring she was manipulative and in no way a “lady”

The ball was dénouement …SHE discovers her husband has feeling for Rebecca, Mrs. Danvers has used her, her dream of being the mistress disappears. She does the best she can under the circumstances but feels her marriage will be short lived and she will be back where she started/

Maxim is forced to reveal his deed. And what do we find ..a local government employee overlooking a crime. Doesn’t that sound familiar and SHE now knows she no longer has to worry about her marriage. They both know a secret…and heaven knows I can’t imagine she really could love him regardless of the reason he committed the crime. BUT now she has a husband beholden to her .. one that wont run away, and what is she now but an unpaid companion..? It is to her all the plans , the moving , the arrangement falls to. Maxim has what he wanted ,,,some one to baby him, cosset him, take care of his needs ..all he wanted from the beginning. Everyone in the end gets what they wanted. AND none of a pretty picture………it seems du Maurier has covered the gamut of the worst of human emotions…..anna

Anna, I'll add my Bravo also!
Such an excellent post! And it shows you did do a lot of thinking. Your post was the key that unlocked the door not only for the reason of the young woman's behavior but also the reasons for the behavior of many of the characters du Maurier created in the novel.

Bill H

"The ball was dénouement …SHE discovers her husband has feeling for Rebecca.
Page 275:

" 'Whenever you touched me I thought you were comparing me to Rebecca,' I said. 'When ever you spoke to me or looked at me, walked wth me in the garden, sat down to dinner, I felt you were saying to yourself, This I did with Rebecca, and this and this. It was true, wasn't it?'

" 'Oh, my God,' he said. . . . . 'You thought I loved Rebecca?' he said. 'You thought I killed her, loving her? I hated her. I tell you, our marriage was a farce from the very first. She was vicious, damnable, rotten through and through. We never loved each other, never had one moment of happiness together. Rebecca was incapable of love, of tenderness, of decency. She was not even normal.'

" 'I found her out at once,' he was saying, 'five days after we were married. You remember the time I drove you to the car, to the hills above Monte Carlo? I wanted to stand there again, to remember. She sat there, laughing, her black hair blowing in the wind; she told me about herself, told me things I shall never repeat to a living soul. I knew then what I had done, what I had married.. . . I nearly killed her then. It would have been so easy. One false step, one slip. You remember the precipice. I frightened you, didn't I? You thought I was mad. Perhaps I was. Perhaps I am. It doesn't make for sanity, does it, living with the devil.'"

Maxim goes on and tells more -- enough to make me think that the only feeling he had for Rebecca was hate.

Anna said, "It is my opinion this is really a story about all that is bad about human nature."

It is my opinion that this story is about what one rotten apple can do to an entire barrel. This book is a psychological study of what can happen when the devil Maxim speaks of brushes her black wings against everyone she meets and causes them sometimes irreparable damage.

As an example of what can happen when one spends years with someone who is "not even normal", I could post pages of messages giving examples of what it was like to live with a not sane person -- my son -- who was able to manipulate his father, me, his brother and sister into terrible states of turmoil and stress by acting perfectly normal, intelligent, talented, charming, then going into a psychotic episode which nobody, even doctors, recognized for a very long time. During these episodes he was able to turn us all against each other, do terrible damage, and cause awful suspicion. He, unfortunately, played a very big part in the destruction of my marriage, and made it happen that my daughter and second son would have nothing to do with me for quite a long time. There's more I can't, and won't, talk about here.

This is what I see in Rebecca de Winter in this book, and I am confident from what I read about du Maurier, about this book, and what's in this book, that it's what the author intended her readers to see.

Mal

Mal, I am sure that Rebecca told Maxim she was maybe gay(?); slept around; and other things to get what she wanted in life. Not good in any way - so he hated her. For one thing she did it so well everyone loved her. How depressing was that for him. Even his grandma or was she the mother and they only called her grandma.

One other strange thing is he could of sold the land and had money to build a home. It sounded as if they were not living in the manor they were used to (at the beginning of the book).

Discussions are great. Everyone gets to share an opinion. Sometimes it changes the way one feels about the subject. In every case there is room for thinking. Agreeing, disagreeing We have all been mesmerized by this book and I have enjoyed each post.

Mal I am sorry but I don’t agree with you. The ball was the denouement it is where everything came together. When She came down the stairs Maxim ordered her to go change. He was angry ...very much so...she was wounded by his attitude. When the ball was over she returned to their room, he never came in and said Honey I am sorry or tried to comfort her in any way..

He only confesses after Rebecca’s body is discovered in the sunken ship. Then he tells her how much he hated Rebecca.. He also tells her Rebecca tells him what kind of a person she was only FIVE days after their wedding. Now why didn’t he do something constructive then? Divorce her; seek a lawyer’s advice /ANYTHING? In my estimation all of the characters in this story are flawed humans,

I don’t think Maxim did anything then because he didn’t want anyone to know what a sucker he had been, falling for a pretty face, his trophy bride who would turn Manderly into a showplace...All of which she did...everyone in the story who knew her thought she was beautiful an excellent hostess,. It was Rebecca who decorated, chose what went into the rooms... Made it a showplace. It was what Maxim had hoped when he chose her. He just didn’t bargain for the rest. And when does he finally have enough?.when she lets him believe she is expecting a baby..Not his ,but one who will inherit. Now that was too much. He could tolerate her behavior but not the possibility a bastard would inherit. He has finally had enough...Then he carefully disposes of her body, identifies another woman who happens to wash upon the shore. I don’t see Rebecca making him do that. It was his own pride, his wish to be the Lord of the manor. She may have taunted him but he put up with her when he knew what she was. She did not deceive him, she told him. True after the wedding but he knew!

Now “She” hears what he has done, Killed Rebecca, an unborn child, sinks the boat …BUT as I said she now knows as long as she keeps her mouth closed Maxim will be hers. Her problems are over. He will have to rely on her, be faithful to her, and love her. Well as best he can because I don’t see him as a lover..As a user yes..That is what I see all of these people as users… Poor Ben saved himself from the asylum, Crawley protected his job. Danvers destroys Manderly because now she will be thrown out..No more the housekeeper of a famous mansion. The magistrate will still get invited to the balls and to Manderly- Everyone wins..but of course they lose when Manderly burns down…and now it is only their souls they need to worry about. Rebecca tricked Maxim to marry him but she disclosed her flaws. He knew, Mrs. Danvers Knew…and as long as she gave them what they wanted all was okay. Du Maurier wrote a great novel because she led us all astray..naming the book Rebecca. Letting us think she was the only one evil. I will agree she was most likely mental but she let everyone know what kind of person she was. In that respect she was honest.

"..she let everyone know what kind of person she was. In that respect she was honest."

Did she, Annafair? Nothing was hid from Danvers, of course, and cousin Jack knew what she was. Only to Maxim did she reveal her true self, taunting him and laughing at him. To everyone else she was the beautiful wife, the perfect mistress of Manderley, gay and brilliant. To me, this reflects the kind of mentality that Malryn describes. ....Babi

I dont know but she did let Ben know how evil she was ..and the main characters knew her for what she was ..the others she didnt care..but what disturbs me ..All who knew did nothing about it...had they no character? Why did Maxim put up with her ..it wasnt as if he had to...Mrs Danvers gloried in being her confidant.. Jack used her as much as she used him...She did not hide from them ...so I dont see her as the only bad apple..perhaps I misunderstand the kind of person Mal describes...I never thought they revealed what they were ..always trying to make themselves out to be right in what they said and did .I dont see them letting anyone know what they really were .... anna

Why did Maxim put up with her? That I can't answer, tho' possibly it was his pride. He would have hated having it known what a fool he had been, and you know Rebecca would have ensured the divorce was as nasty as they come.

As far as others are concerned, they probably considered that as long as Max did nothing, it wasn't their business. And they really had nothing concrete against her. Her facade was impeccable. ..Babi

He loved Manderley and Rebecca made Manderley come to life in all of its glory.

none of us realy 'saw the real Rebecca,only second hand through some one elses eyes,was Maxin,s story true?it is all left in the air ,who realy did what,I dont see her as evil,just enjoying her role as mistres

of Manderly,and her buety,playing around maybe!who know, s gladys

Rebecca may very well have been a cruel, selfish mental case, and I believe she was. But as Annafair said, why did Max not do something about it? Why did he capitulate to her and let it all slide? If it was pride, he was an a**. If the divorce had been awful, so what? It would have been better than living with a demon. But he was the one who wanted it all, the beautiful wife who decorated and was a flawless hostess AND Manderlay AND his fortune intact. Does anything Rebecca did justify KILLING her? I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I find him to be the MOST despicable character in the book---not Rebecca. Rebecca may have had all sorts of flaws and all sorts of crazy selfishness----BUT, she never killed anyone to my knowledge. And when you think about the way the dogs reacted to her and Max's old mother too, I just don't see her as that horrible that she deserved death for whatever she did. Sorry!

I don't admire anyone in this book except Bea, and maybe Mrs. VanHopper who was at least up-front even if unpleasant. I think all the others DESERVE EACH OTHER, including SHE for staying with someone who murdered his wife.

Rebecca was not pregnant; she couldn't have any children. On Page 563 Dr. Baker says:

"'Outwardly of course she was a perfectly healthy woman,' he said, 'rather too thin I remember, rather pale, but then that's the fashion nowadays, pity though it is. It's nothing to go upon with a patient. No, the pain would increase week by week, and as I told you, in four or five months' time she would have had to be kept under morphia. That X-rays showed a certain malformation of the uterus, I remember, which meant she could never have a child, but that was quite apart, it had nothing to do with the disease.'"

Danvers says on Page 341:

" She was afraid of nothing and no one. There was only one thing that eer worried her, and that was the idea of getting old, of dying in her bed. She has said to me a score of times. When I go, Danny, I want to go quickly, like the snuffing out of a candle. That used to be the only thing that consoled me, after she died. They say drowning is painless, don't they?"

Maxim played right into her hands when he killed her. Rebecca taunts him by saying on Pate 277

" ' If I had a child, Max, neither you, nor anyone in the world would ever prove that it was not yours. . . . It would give you the biggest thrill of your life, wouldn't it, Max, to watch my son gow bigger day by day, and to know that when you died, all this would be his?' She began to laugh. She went on laughing. I thought she would never stop. . . . 'I'll be the perfect mother, Max, like I've been the perfect wife. And none of them will ever guess, none of them will ever know.'"

Maxim said, "When I killed her she was smiling still."The fact of the matter was that Rebecca knew she had cancer, and she knew there was no hope that she'd survive.

Some of you have said you'd rather have been Rebecca than the narrator, and I've shook my head. Rebecca was a warped, truly evil woman, who cared nothing about anything except herself.

Danvers gave the reader the first true picture of Rebecca when SHE went to Rebecca's room. After the boat is found, Mrs. Danvers says to Favell in the presence of Colonel Julyan on Page 337:

" 'She was not in love with you, or with Mr. de Winter. She was not in love with anyone. She despised all men. She was above all that.'

Favell flushed angrily. 'Listen here. Didn't she come down the path through the woods to meet me, night after night? Didn't you wait up for her? Didn't she spend the week-ends wtih me in London?"

'Well,' said Mrs. Danvers, with a sudden passion, ' and what if she did? She had a right to amuse herself, didn't she? Love-making was a game with her, only a game. It made her laugh. I tell yuo. She laughed at you like she did all the rest. I've known her come back and sit upstairs on her bed and rock with laughter at the lot of you.' "

Life was a cheap game to Rebecca -- decorating Manderley, playing the hostess, cheating on her husband and everyone else, fooling everyone she met and laughing at them afterwards. This is the woman you'd like to emulate?

Mal

. . . not by a long shot. She was no one I would ever emulate, but then there wasn't even a single person in that book I would emulate if I could help it. What some of us are saying is that she didn't deserve to die for whatever she did by being murdered by her husband, and I think his crime outweighs anything she did BY FAR.

Rebecca thought Maxim was doing her a favor, Rose. Better a clean, quick bullet than months and months of wasting away in agony.

Mal

he is a MURDERER! Especially since his motive was not to save her from pain, but just to get rid of her. Seems to me divorce would have been a better option for him, no matter how ugly it was because this was UGLIER.

ROSE, I don't condone the taking of any human life, even in war.

I also do not condone slow, tortuous murder of a human being, body and soul, in the way that Rebecca de Winter had been killing her husband.

I, too, think that these people made some disastrous mistakes. I'll be back in a while to show why Maxim put up with what Rebecca did, and why he didn't do what you suggest.

I find the very serious way we take these characters a fine compliment to the talent and skill of their creator, Daphne du Maurier.

Mal

. . . "crazy" marriage partner since my ex had full-blown manic-depressive disease. For many years I wasn't sure what was going on, but I knew something was very wrong, and then when I finally figured it out after we had some counseling, I decided to hang in there fully conscious of what I was doing and the misery of it all, until my children were grown. I won't go into the reasons, but they were good enough reasons for me. Talk about a crazy household with a crazy man making decisions! Oy vey! The nightmare tales I can tell that I still wonder how in the heck I got through it all, not only intact, but stronger than I ever thought possible.

But that did not justify murder. There were a lot of times I wished a truck would run over him or something like that (sure, I don't hesitate to admit that at all!), but I didn't murder him. I also understand very well the crazy-making manipulations such people can cause and the resulting chaos and deep, deep pain. But to me Max deWinter is a cowardly, evil, jerk, and SHE who stayed with him after she KNEW is the same. The worst human traits imaginable---at least to me.

I don't expect anyone else to agree with my assessment; that's just the way I feel about them.

awesome in this book, with the exception of some mistakes in the plot that I think are quite striking and have a very "wrong tone" to them. And even though I saw this book as a "romance" when I was about 13 or 14, as all my friends who read it also did, I'm so glad I now see the characters for what they really are.

Age has many compensations, and I love being older and a bit wiser. I'd trade it for youth any ol' day.

PS: War is hell, but in war or self-defense I do justify taking a human life. Such was NOT the case in this novel.

ANDY has it right in Post 261:
"He loved Manderley and Rebecca made Manderley come to life in all of its glory." Page 271:

" 'I thought about Manderley too much,' " he said. 'I put Manderley first, before anything else. And it does not prosper, that sort of love. They don't preach about it in churches. Christ said nothing about stones, and bricks, and walls, the love that a man can bear for his plot of earth, his soil, his little kingdom. It does not come into the Christian creed.'"

" ' And so we lived,' he said, 'month after month, year after year, I accepted everything -- because of Manderley. What she did in London did not touch me -- because it did not hurt Manderley.'"

Maxim talks about what Rebecca did in the way of decorating and landscaping that enhanced Manderley; then he goes on to say that she had been careful at first about keeping Manderley separate from her London life. Then she began inviting her friends to Manderley more and more. Her sordid London life was beginning to affect Manderley, Maxim's first and only true love until he met SHE.

I can understand how Maxim felt about Manderley. I felt the same about the trailer, which I owned by myself in Florida and paid for with my own money, on a 100 x 80 square foot lot that I owned, too.

About divorce:

Here's where comparison with the Royal Family in England is helpful. The British Royal Family will do anything to prevent negative publicity. Remember how the Queen felt about the divorces in her own family and the publicity that ensued? British aristocracy follows the Royal lead.

Maxim was an aristocrat, who despised publicity as much as the Queen. Divorce for Maxim would have been a blot on his escutcheon, a taint on the family name. I think it's necessary to try to understand the way these people think and their traditions and codes before we come down too harshly on Maxim de Winter's head because he did not divorce his first wife.

Mal

Wasnt her death an accident though,mad as he was he just struck her and she hit her head,when she fell,not that I condone it ,but he didnt really murder her?Or was this his side of the story again?

He shot her through the heart, GLADYS. Remember how he talks about cleaning up the blood?

Mal

'I hated her.'

I'll never believe that Maxim meant what he said, with that 'confession' of his, quoted at length in one of Mal's posts. (255) I believe he was just finally telling his young wife what she wanted to hear. To save the marriage. And her cold-blooded calculations while she listens, wanting Rebecca dead for good, show her eagerness to make herself an accessory to the crime. If there ever was one. From now on it's their secret, with all that that means for their relationship as husband and wife. It's not very pretty, but there it is.

I totally agree with Anna, for pointing it out, and putting it so well.

There is, however, an element of unreality in all this. Maxim goes along and allows Rebecca to die a second death at the hands of his second wife. The resurrection at the ball was enough for him. The whole thing at Manderley was going from bad to worse. If only She had taken the hint. It was obvious to him that she was miserable. At first it must have been entertaining. And he finds the right name for her: Alice. Just look at the Wonderland she was making of Manderley.

The transformation of Rebecca from best to worst is just too unbelievable. It's all Her doing. Who made Manderley what it was? She or Rebecca? Poor Maxim. No wonder he took to spending more time with Frank, at the office. I'm not sure of those two either.

Jonathan

ps, thanks Bill, I believe I have found the missing pages.

Tomorrow begins the last week of the Rebecca discussion. This will include
Chapters 22 thru Epilogue.
I am sorry I can't join you today. I have a plumbing job needs done I f I can't do it, I'll have to call a plumber. The latter seems more likely. I'll try and get back tomorrow.

Bill H

OKAY, JONATHAN. I'm just the frustrated low man on this totem pole. I'm going back to work and out of here.

Mal

Mal ,Imust be getting more forgetful than Ithought ,in the book and in the movies,I recall her knocking her head near a big bale of rope.I never knew about a gun Ummm ,we are reading the same story arnt we(*_*).gladys

"Murder Most Foul!":

"My darling, my darling, why in the name of God didn't you tell me? My beloved, my sweet." (Maxim to 2nd Mrs. de Winter) His hands and his voice, his hands pulling me back, his cheek agaisnst mine. "Of course she stood between us, of coure I could not love you with her diabolical shadow haunting me, standing forever like a living threat. Don't you understand, darling, that I killed Rebecca, she was never drowned, that body that was washed up, that I identified, was not hers at all. I shot her that night in the cottage in the woods, I carried her vicious dmanable body down to the boat - and laid it in the cabin. It was I who set sail, I who slipped the moorings, and when we were three miles out I opened the sea cocks, bored holes in the planking to make my work more swift - then, casting the life buoy over the side and the fenders and her oilskins to act as evidence, I jumped into the dinghy and pulled away. The boat sank in ten minutes. And Rebecca lies there now, ten fathoms deep, in the cabin of that little boat - and no one will ever know, my darling, no one will ever know." - "The Rebecca Notebook" - Chapter X

At last Maxim decides to tell his secret. But why does he wait until the narrator has as in the Rebecca Notebook decided to swallow lysol or in the novel "Rebecca" attempted to commit suicide? It might be true that Rebecca pushed Maxim over the edge so to speak, but still I find it very hard to believe that someone would take her life as well as the life of an unborn child that was sane. Maxim must have been a very shelfish and shallow person to do this. And what does the narrator do when she hears this bit of information - does she call the police? No! She thinks at last I have Maxim for myself!

It seems to me that Maxim had complete control over everyone. It is almost like he was an over-lord in a feudal state. Everyone from Frank Crawley, his sister, his second wife, the tenants, and even the magistrate owed their existence to him. Of course, he felt he could get away with murder!

The only one that he was ever afraid of was Mrs. Danvers. That's why I think he kept her on at Manderley. Besides being very efficient at what she did and I think this would suit Maxim in that he wouldn't have to be bothered by domestic problems; I think he was also afraid of how much Mrs. Danvers knew. Did Rebecca confide in her? Did she suspect that he might of killed Rebecca? Could Mrs. Danvers reminded him of his own mother or grandmother - strong women with weak husbands?

Rebecca wasn't pregnant, she had cancer of the uterus. See Page 363.

Rebecca wasn't pregnant, she had cancer of the uterus. See Page 363.

She wasnt and in my post I said she led him to believe she was. And IMHO she did so because it would be her final evil thing to do..Maxim would kill her ..and when it was known he would then be jailed or hanged....Perhaps it was her way of getting even with him,,MAYBE she would have given up her lifestyle if he had married her for all the right reasons...His motives , his needs are what drove the whole story. he was guilty of allowing this "marriage" to proceed in order to save people from knowing the full extent of his stupidity ..and the so called Royal behavior is just another way not to accept responsibility for one's own actions.

To me he was a vain, egotistical, pompous user of all those he should have held dear. And "she" was no better.

AND it is lovely to be mature and read a book from that age and laugh at how you found it a romance when you were young! anna

Way back in Post #63 I asked, "Am I the only one here who does not despise Max de Winter?". Well, I don't, and I think it's getting me in trouble.

I have tried to understand Maxim de Winter, the time he lived in, and his place in Society without judging him by today's standards, just as I have tried to understand the female characters in this novel in the same way.

I know it's fashionable today to stand up for women and their rights no matter what, but I'll tell you truly that I don't like Rebecca at all. She's the villain in this piece, as far as I'm concerned.

In my opinion, the rest of the principal characters, male and female, including Mrs. Danvers, are Rebecca's victims. Rebecca used poor Danny terribly, and let her down, too.

(Lest you think I'm not a feminist I'll tell you I've fought for women's rights since I was in high school, did more at that women's colege I went to -- Gloria Steinem's alma mater -- and even more after that to this very day.)

Mal

Mal, I agree with you.

I do think Rebecca was very evil. Rebecca played like she loved Danny. Jack thought Rebecca loved him. Jasper thought Rebecca loved him.

She was a fool to stay with Maxim though after she found out he murdered Rebecca. After the "school girl crush" wears off, what is left?

Well, FRANCY, I guess what's left has to be love.

There certainly isn't much fortune left after Manderley burns down. There's no way in the world a mansion like that and its contents can be covered by insurance. Much that was in it was priceless and irreplaceable, like the portrat of Miss Caroline de Winter, for example.

Mal

Be hard to love someone who is a murderer.

As I feared the minor plumbing job turns out to be a major plumbing job. So I called the plumber and he told me that he would call me sometime before 5: PM tomorrow to let me know when he will arrive.
Now that's just ducky. Since I'm on a dial up connection for the Internet, I won't be able to log on till after he calls. I'll try and get back here sometime tomorrow night.

Bill H

He should call about 4:55 then Bill. In Kansas that's the way they do it. Or call the next week as if that was the plan all along.

Chapter 22 thru Epilogue. June 29th. thru July 5th, begins the final week of the Rebecca discussion.

Bill H

It wasn't discovered that Rebecca had cancer of the uterus until almost the end of the novel.
Excuse me for posting a discussion schedule. I can see it was a waste of time. I hope the schedule didn't inconvenience anyone.

Bill H.

. . . too terrible, and forgive us all for not sticking to the schedule. It's just that this is a very well-written book, easily read in an evening, and it's hard to put it down once the tale has begun and the mystery has captured your fancy. It is obviously very well written, better than even du Maurier herself thought it was.

Mountain Rose, I understand what you mean. However, every DL expects the participants to adhere to the schedule no matter how well known the book is.
The purpose of the required SN schedule in the heading is to point out the chapters to be discussed in the assigned time frame regardless of whether he/she has finished the book.
All a reader has to do is to glance at the schedule in the heading to see where we are in the novel.
Scamper left the discussion because of this posting ahead. Scamper was new to Senior Net and she said she wished to follow the assigned schedule. I hope Senior Net does not lose this person because her wishes were ignored.
..."Not much left after Manderley burns down... "
Another post that jumped way ahead. What's the rush?

Bill H

So many of us know this book so well that it is so difficult not to jump ahead and ruin your scheduling. To keep us in line is like herding a bunch of cats, I'm afraid. Also, du Maurier unfolds the story in such a way that so much of the earlier allusions can only be explained by what happens later. Which, IMO, is one of her great talents. We peel away layer after layer until we finally reach the center of the whole thing. She leads us step by step down this twisted path with all kinds of clues for us to stumble over along the way until finally, in the end, it all makes sense.

I have been lurking for days and enjoying all of the posts, nodding my head in agreement over some and shaking my head in disbelief over some. Is it possible that we all could be reading the SAME book? What a master du Maurier was to elicit so many different viewpoints. I think some savvy analytical psychiatrist should give his patients this book to read and then ask for their critiques. It would surely give the doctor great insights into their psyches.

I am with you, Mal, in that I also do not despise Maxim. I find him weak, perhaps, but I try to remember that he was raised in a family of wealth and privilege in a time in England when the class system was still very important. He was used to having things done for him and life was made "easy" for him from the time he was born, undoubtedly. Also, I'm going to assume that he was so dazzled and fooled by Rebecca when he married her that he believed himself to be in love with her. It was only within a few days after the marriage that she revealed herself and he was completely disillusioned. It must have been a tremendous blow to his ego. But then he entered into a pact with the devil. Because he loved Manderley above all else he agreed to stay married to Rebecca but only as long as she brought no shame to the name of de Winter or to Manderley. Gradually she began to break that promise and pushed him to the breaking point. The one thing he would not tolerate is shame to be brought down on his family and his home.

Mountain Rose, I suppose that technically it seems that Max is getting away with murder but, I think that in the end we see he is "sentenced" just as surely as if he spends the rest of his life behind bars. Du Maurier doesn't let him off scot free at all. And his final sentence is a very harsh one.

I saw this as a wonderful romance, too, when I was young. Du Maurier considered it a story of jealousy. I'm not sure now just which it is. Maybe, both. Whatever it is, it is still one of the best books of our time, I think. And it has made this a really fun discussion.

ANNA, I think so too. When she came down the stairs in that dress he could have showed some regret at having hurt her, but he didn’t need her at that point.

I think that there are two stories, one before the white dress and one after. Before the dress incident, SHE acted like an immature tongue tied child bride barely able to stand on her own two feet and Maxim treats her like a nothing and we are left under the impression that the marriage was never consummate. Before the Dress incident, he was a total beast with her and what shocked him was seeing HER in Rebecca’s dress. He was cold toward HER during the ball not noticing how hurt she was for being treated like that in front of the guests. If SHE had been as smart as after the incident she would never have worn a dress that Mrs. Danvers would have suggested because she would have sensed her motivation.

After the body was discovered in the boat, the story takes on a totally different turn. Maxim suddenly finds that he LOVES his 2nd wife. Can this just happen overnight? Or does he love her because he needs her protection.

As FRANCYLOU says a crime is a crime no matter the motive and Maxim did not kill Rebecca in self-defense he just hated her.

It does seem like an abrupt change, doesn't it, ELOISE? I think Maxim loved SHE all along, but couldn't figure out what was going on with her any more than she could figure out what was going on with him, so didn't feel free to express that love, any more than she did. Who was it that talked about lack of communication here? SCRAWLER? ROSE? Maxim says "the shadow of Rebecca" was between them.

JONATHAN has suggested all along that skim milk masquerades as cream -- or vice versa, and that the narrator was acting in a way that wasn't really what she is. [ Of course, many, many posts ago JONATHAN also asked, "Who lit the match?" ; ) ]

SHE is quite an actress, did you notice? At one point in the book, she's thinking about Rebecca, and her whole face changes. Maxim notices it and asks her what she's thinking about because her youthful innocence had changed into something he didn't recognize.

As an author, Daphne de Maurier is very, very adept at tying loose ends together. She has SHE say on Page 268:

" 'Why didn't you tell me? The time we've wasted when we might have been together. All these weeks and days.'

" ' You were so aloof,' he said, 'always wandering into the garden with Jasper, going off on your own. You never came to me like this.'

" ' Why didn't you tell me?' I whispered. 'Why didn't you tell me?'

" ' I thought you were unhappy, bored,' he said. ' I'm so much older than you. You seemed to have more to say to Frank than you ever had to me. You were funny with me, awkward, shy.'

SHE tells Maxim she thought he loved Rebecca, and he is amazed. Du Maurier also, in this part of the book, has SHE remember all kinds of clues that were in earlier parts of this novel, as she ties up loose ends and comes to a conclusion.

This writer is not satisfied just to do that, though, she has to bring in Tabb, who hints that the boat was tampered with. Du Maurier is not even content with that. Favell has a note from Rebecca, which could be incriminating as far as Maxim is concerned. She was a clever, clever author, who left no strings untied, no question unanswered, and no crime unpunished.

Mal

There's all kinds of crime, and there are different kinds of murder, as well as many different ways to punish the perpetrators of crimes.

I maintain that Rebecca had sentenced Maxim to a slow, awful death as soon as he married her. She knew she'd get away with her crime because his honor and the traditions of his family code wouldn't let him stop what she'd decided to do.

What's worse, she had begun to destroy his only true love, Manderley, thus hitting him in his most vulnerable spot, his heart. The law doesn't cover crimes like hers; this perpetrator would go scot free after she tortured Maxim to death, and she'd inherit everything he had.

Maxim was not punished for killing his wife? Because of her and the insane grief and madness of Mrs. Danvers, Maxim lost Manderley forever. He had to go into exile, since he would always be under suspicion in Cornwall and England. Instead of the craggy shoreline, fog, rain, wildly beautiful Cornish coast, Maxim de Winter was doomed forever to live in a place where the sun beat down on his head and his memories, and to wander from one place to another every time he was recognized. Slow punishment for his crime, following the slow death of part of his soul and every hope and dream he ever had and everything he held dear -- except for one thing. I call that enough.

Mal

But wasn't Maxim lucky to have a 'companion' to share the exile with him. She must be wondering: isn't this where I came in?

What a fate! It blows me away to think of what each of his two wives did with Manderley. Do we ever find out where he picked up Rebecca?

Just as interesting as the book, is to see what we are all making OF the book. That's the wonder of it. One can read almost anything into it, with a little imagination. On the other hand, only the stout-hearted can walk about at Manderley without apprehensions. Doesn't She say that somewhere?

I came across some recent reviews of REBECCA on the Internet. Submitted mostly by young female readers. Some by others remembering their reading experience of years ago. Lots of excitement over the 'unforgettable spellbinder.' One thirteen-year-old remembered still reading at 5 AM. Then, after turning off the light, unable to fall sleep. Got up and went off to school, to sit there distracted all day. This book will never die.

Now then, shall we try to make some sense out of the melodramatic ending of one life and the beginning of another?

Jonathan

Surely Rebecca deliberately taunted Maxim to the point of killing her. That was exactly what she intended. She didn't want a lingering death, and true to her nature instead of killing herself, she found a way todto one last supremely hurtful thing. Cause her husband to commit murder, not only of her, but of her supposed unborn child, and leave him with the horror of that hanging over him for the rest of his life.

The Rebecca I see in all this is a very twisted, evil human being. And I am convinced that is exactly how DuMaurier intended to portray her. ...Babi

And I contend that Rebecca didn't give a hoot about Maxim. She didn't care about anyone but herself. She used Mrs. Danvers, she used Jack Favell. She was totally selfish and self-absorbed and completely amoral. She wanted Manderley and the position in society that went along with being Maxim's wife. The fact that she had to take Maxim, too, was just an irritation. One that she thought she could work around with the help of her cousin, Favell, and the worshipful Mrs. Danvers. After all, dear old Danny would do anything for her, wouldn't she? She always had. When Rebecca learned of her illness and realized the consequences of it and what the wasting disease would do to her famous beauty she goaded Maxim, she used him as a tool to perform the final act that she apparently could not do herself. The ultimate selfish achievement. She would not have to suffer lingering death and pain and if Maxim were tried and found guilty of murder, well, why should she care? Her goal had been realized. That's all that mattered to Rebecca. She must have laughed all the way to Hell.

This book is a reflection of the times,places and circumstances in which it is set. The Lord of the Manor is head of his fiefdom,in a remote part of the country.He would no more have been found guilty of Rebecca's death..no matter what. as he had powerful friends in all the right places. His choice of working with the "devil" for his beloved Manderley was of course his downfall. The fact that he had to live in exile for the rest of his days was punishment indeed for an Englishman. The second Mrs de Winter found her man to look after which is really all she wanted. And we come full circle to exile in a hotel abroad. Ta ta for now Colkot

This story is a variation of Faust?

Mal

I rushed ahead so I would know the secrets - and not be disappointed if someone let out a secret by accident.

Then I returned the book Bill so that someone else could read this wonderful book! So I am sorry if I got ahead of the schedual. Sure did not mean to.

It has been such a wonderful discussion - I have gotten so much insight from everyone's thoughts. Oh the wonderful twists and turns!

How much do we know about Mrs. Danvers? We know that she took care of Rebecca since she was a child. She LOVED Rebecca. Perhaps this is a love story after all. Mrs. Danvers treated Rebecca as if she was the Queen of England, only more so. Not only was it a game to Rebecca, but it was also a game to Mrs. Danvers. Every time Rebecca got back at one of those upper-crust people, so did Mrs. Danvers. She was not only a personal maid to Rebecca but also her mother, sister, and friend all wrapped into one. There wasn't anything that Mrs. Danvers didn't know about her - except one! Why was it that she didn't know that Rebecca had seen Dr. Baker. You'd think that she would be the one person Rebecca would have confided with, but she didn't - Why I wonder? Was Rebecca afraid of Mrs. Danvers? But than Mrs. Danvers herself said that Rebecca wasn't afraid of anything. No it wasn't Rebecca that became mistress of Manderley, but Mrs. Danvers! When Maxim tried to move on with his life, it was she who continually reminded him of Rebecca. She had control over Maxim just as she had control over the house and the servants. And when she finds out what Maxim did to Rebecca; she takes the one thing she thought he feared loosing - Manderley!

It's interesting that the truth comes out at last through Mrs. Danvers, although it is not what any of the characters anticipates. The housekeeper turns up the engagement book which contains the appointment with Dr. Baker. Everyone assumes that Dr. Baker will reveal what Rebecca told Maxim that fateful night--that she was pregnant with Favell's child. But Rebecca's taunt to Maxim was just another one of her lies: in fact, this lie was calculated to make Maxim kill her and be punished for the murder. Rebecca's plan fails and she dies childless--beautiful, but diseased and sterile, the embodiment of beauty that is only skin deep.

It's probably just as well that Mrs. Danvers destroys Manderley, since it is unlikely that the narrator and Maxim could have had a happy life there anyway. The house and Rebecca are finally gone, and the couple will have to make a new life for themselves. We are left wondering what effect this has all had on the innocence of the narrator that Maxim loved, and on her view of him now that she has seen the dark side of his violent nature.

After Dr. Baker told of Rebecca's illness, Jack Favel was noticeably shaken and asked if it was contagious. However, Jack was not finished with Max.
"The law can get you yet, and so can I, in a different way."
Jack was laughing as the car left. He wasted no time in phoning Danny.
The drive back to Manderley displayed another example of Maxim's lack of consideration for HER. He suggested they drive straight through instead of stopping for the night at a hotel for a good night sleep. He had a bad feeling.
Instead she had to make the back seat of the car due for a bed. . She did muster enough courage to tell him she was hungary, so they stopped for a meal that he hurried her through. This man's lack of consideration for his wife is deplorable.

Bill H

BILL, as a writer I know that Daphne du Maurier described Maxim's anxiety to get home only as a writing device to create suspense by instilling a feeling of foreboding in the reader, worry that something dreadful had happened at Manderley. It had nothing to do with the relationship between Maxim and his wife.

Mal

How I recall I related to this story at 12. How sorry I felt for SHE and Maxim..How terrible all the other characters were..especially Rebecca and Mrs D. I loved it then but times change ..and it is true that in the UPPER CRUST of that day nothing would have happened to Maxim...Seem it hasnt changed much ..when you read the newspapers etc those that have money and position often seem to get by with whatever crime they have committed.

However that doesnt change the fact a crime was committed. I dont feel any forgiveness ..Rebecca got what she wanted ...Danvers got what she wanted as well ..Manderly..destroyed true but no one else would ever be mistress nor housekeeper there. She was as devoted to Manderly as Rebecca. Perhaps more so .

Maxim lost Manderly and retained his life ..I dont see him feeling any remorse for his crime. And everyone who knew or suspected he murdered his wife seemed to feel sorry for him ..POOR MAX...That boggles my mind. And She who dreamed of Manderly lost her dream and was left with a husband whom she was ..Johnathan did you say it ..a companion..doing all the tasks, comforting an aging man whom I feel wallowed in self pity..Now a real sequel to this would be SHE poisoning Max ..Some readers here seem to think we ought to forgive max for shooting Rebecca...that Rebecca got what she deserved..I guess that is SHES rationale...and of course it is suggested at the time when this was supposed to have taken place this is the way the UPPER CRUST behaved..a lesson for all who take the law into thier own hands..be sure you are not poor, have a noted family, and the person whom you murder is deserving of your deed..

How far I have come from that 12 year old..I read now with less stars in my eyes ..That this is a successful novel there is no doubt .here we are living in a world that seems barbaric and getting more so and still spending our time reading and discussing a book about people who never existed in a world that most of us never lived...anna

Yes, I try not to let the real world in. It is too terrible.

What can I do. Nothing. I vote. Nothing is different. There are bad people no matter how hard we try to get the "right" people in office. I keep on praying - God is the only one who can take care of it. I leave it his hands. And read this book - enjoy the discussion. See all the twists and turns, false leads, tricks! What a great author Mrs. du Maurier was.

I am now reading the Glass Blowers (I think that's the title). They said there is a book by a different author on Rebecca... humm wonder, probably be a great disappointment.

We have to remember that it was judged at the inquest that Rebecca committed suicide even after James Tabb testified about the holes in the boat.

If the decision had been that she was murdered, an investigation would have had to take place and a suspect found. Since Rebecca was ultra-careful to convince the world that her and Max de Winter's marriage was the most perfect one that had ever existed, it is very doubtful (in my mind, anyway) that Maxim would have been suspected of committing this or any other crime.

Rebecca's death was ruled suicide because there was not sufficient evidence that it wasn't. There was no proof that she had been shot. The bullet went through her body and did not hit bone, thus leaving no trace. The body had deteriorated so much that all that could be proved was that the body was, indeed, that of Rebecca de Winter.

If for some reason, Maxim de Winter had been accused, there was no way to prove he or anyone else had done anything to Rebecca. The letter Jack Favell had from Rebecca would never have stood up in court because Dr. Baker confirmed that Rebecca wasn't pregnant, she had incurable uterine cancer, even a greater reason for her to commit suicide. There simply and purely was not enough evidence to accuse anyone of murder. I am absolutely certain that there are cases like this today. The law is the law, and when there is insufficient proof of wrongdoing, people go free.

When I first read this book, and each time afterwards that I've read it, I have never felt sorry for SHE and Maxim. I thought Rebecca was the essence of evil. I thought Mrs. Danvers was crazy. To me, as a young reader, the book was a thriller; it made my hair stand on end, and it was a long time before I could get it out of my mind. I still think Rebecca was evil and that Mrs. Danvers' mind was not normal, and once again it will be hard to get this story out of my mind.

As far as forgiveness is concerned, I have never even thought of it.

Maxim de Winter made a pact with the devil because he thought his honor and the codes and traditions of his artistocratic family left him no other choice. He wasn't alone at that time in history to think and feel this way.

I keep thinking of Lily Bart in House of Mirth. Through a terrible misunderstanding, Lily had fallen from grace in New York Society. Even poverty-stricken and starving, she would not lower the standards of her artistocratic upbringing to accept money and the conditions offered to her by Sim Rosedale, which would have kept her alive, because he was a Jew and nouveau riche, thus below her status in life. She chose death rather than lower her standards of honor.

Except for rare instances, we don't hear much about honor today. People like Maxim de Winter would do anything to maintain and protect their honor, even, in his case, stay married to a woman who was ruining his life. This book is a remarkably well-drawn picture of its time.

Mal

I think life is a wonder and wonderful. Having read a little history, I don't think the world and people in it are any more terrible than they were thousands of years ago. It seems that way, perhaps, because of advances in technology and communications that make us aware of what's going on outside our own little personal boundaries. This is not a bad thing, and may someday help bring about positive change.

Mal

Even in our little subdivision there are terrible things that happen. Just wish I had some real power. You know how your kids think you have all the power - ha.

Hitchcock did a superb job directing this film. Mrs. Danvers was the epitome of evil, just as I had expected.

Your posts have been wonderful and informative. I relish EACH and every opinion that each of you has presented.

Bill, you did Lorrie justice. Thank you!

One last comment. Someone asked: "How do you suppose She feels about Maxim now that she knows his dark side?"

From the description of their life together after Manderly, I believe that Her feelings toward Maxim were protective, as well as loving. I think they clung to each other as the only two people who fully understood what they had been thru' together. They wanted nothing more than to live quietly and unnoticed, in peace.

Thanks, BILL. It's been interesting reading all the responses to this great classic. ....Babi

Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca achieved what she wanted to achieve and she would be happy to see her book discussed this way. Participants can express opinions freely and in more depth than verbally because we have a longer time to formulate our thoughts without interruption. Had she written it today, it would not have been as popular as it was then. Teenagers today have a lot of savvy and are not as easily impressed as we were then.

But reading Rebecca later in life, we become keen at finding the flaws that are sprinkled everywhere in this book and we are not as easily influenced by the romantic setting as when we were young as ANNA so aptly put it. In a way I don't know which is better, now or then. I loved romantic novels in my teens.

Thank you for fine leadership Bill and our Lorrie would have been proud of this. I miss her terribly.

Eloïse

Hi All!

Thanks for all the wonderful posts. I’ve been lurking here and enjoying the discussions. To me, this story was about the human condition. Like we all are in various degrees, the folks in this tale seem self-centered. Who in this tale is not using someone else for personal gain?

I never read the story before, nor have I read anything else by this author. I love the writing style. The fact that du Maurier could weave the story from present to past to imaginary present and past and still I could follow it was amazing.

Enjoy Senior Net and this forum. Nice to meet you all.

Lane Koeslin (age 65)

Nina Auerbach, author of Daphne du Maurier's biography, Haunted Heiress, tells us that du Maurier hated the Hitchcock film of Rebecca and fought this director every inch of the way.

Quoted from Auerbach's biography:

"Even more obtrusive than his fog is the romance Hitchcock brings to the de Winters' marriage. In the novel, even before the bride's arrival at Manderley, the marriage is brusque and businesslike. . . . In the film, there is a throbbing atmosphere: Joan Fontaine as the girl first meets Olivier's Maxim, not through Mrs. Van Hopper, but as a Byronic figure perched dangerously on a picturesque cliff. . . She fears he is about to jump, screams, runs to him and pulls him back. The implication is that she will save him throughout their marriage, while the novel implies that the girl will be endlessly taken over and moved about."

Auerbach also says:

"Hitchcock films an affectionate young couple who make the mistake of wandering into a sinister house, one which fortunately burns down at the end. Hitchcock's direction sentimentalizes the material so radically that he hardly needed to soften the novel further by changing the plot.

"Hitchcock's Maxim is exonerated of wife-murder: America's Motion Picture Production Code refused to let a hero kill even a promiscuous wife. . . . not only Olivier, but Ronald Colman, who had turned down the part, refused to alienate audiences by killing Rebecca."

Auerbach goes on to say that Hitchcock's Rebecca falls and strikes her head on "a heavy piece of ship's tackle", while Maxim stands by and does nothing.

"The end (of the movie) is a triumph of young love, not the stricken exile we see in the novel. . . . In Hitchcock's version, Joan Fontaine does not accompany the men on their odyssey to Rebecca's gynecologist in London. Instead, she becomes the focus of the menaced Manderley as mad Mrs. Danvers stalks from room to room with a burning torch, unable, we are told, to bear the thought that Max and his new bride will live happily there.

"In the novel, of course, we are never sure whether Mrs. Danvers does burn Manderley, with or without Favell's complicity, or whether it combusts spontaneously of its own incessant masquerades. If du Maurier's Mrs. Danvers were a pyromaniac, she would surely be punishing Maxim for killing Rebecca, not for marrying again; she has no interest in happy endings but only in a single, laughing, mocking boyish woman."

Auerbach says that the 1996 Masterpiece Theater production of Rebecca is somewhat better than Hitchcock's.

"But like so many du Maurier's characters who find new life on the BBC, this most recent Maxim embodies a lost and cherished England. He sacrifices himself as the epitome of that exclusively English breed, a gentleman. He is stricken by noblesse oblige, not murderous madness."

In other words, Hitchcock and others have corrupted and defiled du Maurier's intense and tense psychological drama by turning it into a romantic love affair, which never existed in du Maurier's novel. If you want to know what du Maurier intended, read the book.

Mal

I enjoyed joining in this disussion,even if it was a long time since I read it.thanks bill for good leadership,and good reading to all gladys

GLADYS and all, this discussion is not over until July 5th. See the discussion schedule in the heading on this page.

Mal

Don't lurk, anymore. Your comments would be valued along with all the comments here. We all agree, or disagree, as friends and I, for one, enjoy the many discussions we have.

How has Mrs. de Winter II changed? She grew up! Adversity, tragedy, LIFE! does that to us, doesn't it? Unfortunately, I think, that her time as a "wife" and mistress of Manderley was all too short and she has become in the end, the caretaker and "mother" to her husband and an exile. Once again a companion. Perhaps Rebecca did win, after all. Or was it that du Maurier felt that jealousy made losers of them all?

It's been fun, everyone. I'm not sure that you have changed my mind about Mrs. de W. II or about Rebecca or Maxim, et al., but it was great to talk with you all about a book and an author that I have loved for a long time. Thank you.

And thank you, Bill, for putting up with this unruly bunch that simply would not (could not) stick to the schedule. Good job!

Cripe, BILL, these people-in-a-big-hurry are trying to end this discussion 5 days before it's supposed to! I may have skipped to the end of the book a day before I was supposed to, but I wanted this discussion to go on forever!

We haven't even really discussed Jack Favell, or his strange relationship to Rebecca, or how Manderley caught fire! Get in here and do something, BILL, will you, please?

Mal

Mal It sounded like they were winding up ,sorry folks ,I must have missed the schedule,I came in when it had started.yes things were so much different in the movie,which I remember most,being a long time since I read the book.I was kind of taken with Jack favell in the movie

I always loved that actors voice,cant remember his name now/wasnt he Rebbaca,s couson ?gladys

Today is not the last day of the discussion!!
Why do some of you feel it is? Please look at the schedule and see that we still have almost another week to go before closing out. July 5th. is the last day.
This is why I keep asking that everyone please glance at the schedule every once in a while to see where we are.

Bill H

Lane, welcome to the discussion. Sorry to be late in my welcome to you. You see, I use the mornings to do the chores in and out of the house. This morning I pruned shrubbery, hedges, (such a long row of them) and worked in the veggie garden. After lunch, I then have the afternoons free to work on my discussion.
Folks please don't think the discussion ends today. There is so much more I have to say.

Bill H

Mal, I do feel sorry for these two people. The ghost of Rebecca hung over them from their first meeting and cast a pall over their marriage. Then, of course, was the mentally ill Mrs. Danvers to contend with. The aforementioned did not make for a happy life.
I feel even to day people will do most anything to protect their honor. For example, our prominent politicians. How many of these politicos remain married for the sake of propriety.? The same could apply to CEOs. I'm sure these people would do anything to protect their integrity and keep their companies solvent.

Bill H

BILL, any man who prunes his shrubbery and works in his vegtable garden sounds like a nice man to me. What I meant when I said I didn't feel sorry for SHE and Maxim was that I didn't feel that way when I was much younger and read the book for the first time. I was too scared by Mrs. Danvers and Rebecca's ghost and the west wing of Manderley to think of much else.

GLADYS, George Sanders played Favell in Hitchcock's movie of Rebecca. He's the last person I'd have chosen for that part; he was too suave and sophisticated. Favell was a rogue.

I'd choose somebody more devilish, like Alan Bates or Richard Burton, if I were casting this book. Actually, Burton would have been a good Maxim, I think. I'd have Emma Thompson for SHE. Agnes Moorehead was perfect for Danvers, I think.

Mal

Never have I read such interesting opinions about a piece of fiction. Not surprising, I guess, given the brilliant writing of Dame du Maurier. And she has written better stuff than this? I don't know how much I could take. Perhaps I sympathize with Maxim when he says that he's thinking about cricket matches, while his wife finds ghosts lurking in every window.

Speaking about matches, it can't be ruled out that Maxim himself burned the place down, with Frank's help. I seem to remember that Maxim phoned Frank, before leaving London. He is told that Mrs Danvers had packed her bags and left Manderley hours before. So she clearly was not there when when the place went up in flames. She was a broken woman. I wonder what she took with her.

'...jealousy made losers of them all.' I love that Phyll.

Perhaps Ben had a hand in putting a match to Manderley, like he may have had a hand in helping Rebecca sail to her death. He seems to have known the circumstances of her death before it became public knowledge.

But back to the beginning. Can we be sure that this whole story is anything more than the romantic, gothic romantic, dreams of a young woman, while drudging it as a companion to wealthy old bore? Did she in fact ever get away from that glitzy Riviera?

I accepted fom the very start that she was an unreliable narrator. It is, after all, a monologue. What caught my attention was the fact that she used a variation of 'I dreamed' nine times in the first chapter. Goodness knows, how many countless others have visited Manderley in their dreams since. It's just as well that du Maurier burned it to the ground. The locals must be grateful not to have hordes of trippers poking around.

Jonathan

"You think you can blackmail me, Astley, (Favell) but you're wrong." Very white. "I'm not afraid of anything you can do. There's the telephone. Shall I ring up Gray (Colonel Julyan), ask him to come over?

"You would not dare. This evidence is enough to hang you." Henry (Maxim) walked to the tlephone..."You know Paul Astely, Rebecca's cousin." "Yes, we have met, I think." "Very well, Astely, go ahead." (Wind out of sails.) "Look here, Gray, I'm not satisfied with the verdict." "Isn't that for De Winter to say?"

"No, I don't think it is. I have a right to speak, not only as Rebecca's cousin but, if she had lived, as her prospective husband."

"Is this true, Henry?" Henry laughed shortly.

"So he says, Arthur, if you want to believe it you can."

"Supposing you tell me exactly what's wrong."

"Listen here, Gray, this note was written to me half an hour before Rebecca was supposed to have set out on that suicidal sail. Here it is, I want you to say whether you think a woman who wrote that note had made up her mind to kill herself?"

"No - on the face of it, no. What does the note refer to? What were these plans?"

"We were going to Paris. It was her idea, she loathed Manderley, loathed every stick and stone in the place. Henry was going to London, it was an escapade after her own heart."

"I've got something to tell you." What do you suppose that means?"

"I don't know. One never knew with Rebecca. It might mean anything. But there was the meeting - nine-thirty - in the cottage, it's as plain to me as though she were standing here now."

"What are you suggesting, get done with these insinuations and speak out."

"Rebecca never plugged the holes in that boat, Gray, Rebecca never commited suicide, she was murdered, and if you want to know who the murderer is, why he is - standing there with his God damned superior smile, he couldn't even wait till the year was out befoe marrying again, the first chit of a girl he set his eyes on - there's your murderer for you, Mr. Henry de Winter of Manderley." He began to laugh, high-pitched and foolish, the laugh of a drunkard, and all the while pointing his finger at Henry, who stood very still in the corner by the window. "The Rebecca Notebook" Chapter XX

It seems to me that Jack and Maxim are like two peas in a pod. Both thought they could get away with crimes. Jack wanted to blackmail Maxim, but because he was poor and people like Colonel Julyan didn't respect him he wasn't able to get away with it. Maxim on the other hand because he had money and could control people was able to get away with murder. What would have happened if Jack had produced Rebecca's note? Would it have been enough to hang Maxim? I don't think so. Jack was a small time criminal, while Maxim thought little of anyone except perhaps Manderley, and than only because it gave him superior influence over people he was more of a criminal than Jack and he thought himself above the law. Did others know about Maxim's crime? I think Crawley suspected it as well as Colonel Julyan. After all why would he suggest that Maxim and the 2nd Mrs. de Winter go away for awhile, if he didn't suspect that Maxim was responsible for Rebecca's death? If only these two had come forward and supported Jack's suggestions, perhaps things would have been different, but again this is a class story of the 1920s and 1930s and Maxim had both Crawley and Julyan in the palm of his hand.

Mal !yes George Saunders,now to me he was that part,I saw a bit of the devil in him.it seems there are varying themes of the way Manderley was destroyed,I always understood danvers to have perished in the fire!the difference between the book and the movie,is very

noticable.Lawrence Olivier always seem to play morbid parts dont think ,I ever saw him smile in any movie.gladys

I see Favell as a two bit conniver who'd cheat anybody to get what he wanted. There was nothing honorable about old Jack. In my mind he was Rebecca's alter ego, except that she was stronger and smarter than Jack was. Cousins? Their shared blood certainly shows.

Maxim de Winter was in no way a criminal. If he'd been arrested for the murder of his wife and convicted, he'd have taken his punishment "like a man", as the old saying goes. I see Maxim as a gentleman who had been pushed into madness by a cruel, evil woman.

People here who think Max was a rotter through and through will never see what those of us who don't think this see. Never the twain shall meet. That's what's made this discussion so extremely interesting.

Mal

Glad I did not watch the movie before I read the book. The book was sooooo good.

I have met people like cousin Jack. Very very disturbing to be around.

Oh, reading Glass Blowers (I think is the title) - it is set in the middle 1700's. The wife is very forward. As a bride she goes right in with the other women and makes coffee for the workers. Takes over the books. So in this book du Maurier made She the way she was on purpose. I expect to make the EVIL more scarey.

Mal, thanks you for saying I sound like a nice guy.
I'm 78 years old and still do most of my own house work and yard work. However, I do rely on my old time cleaning lady to help me with some things. This wonderful woman is worth her weight in gold. I say that because she is very thin )
I love to be out doors early morning. This keeps me from posting until afternoon, but, oh what a joy it is to be outdoors in the morning.
Scrawler. you brought out some very good points in your post. Even if Jack did produce the note from Rebecca, I agree with you that the inquest would have still ruled in Max's favor. I feel this is s why Maxim was so brave in going to the phone and calling Julyan.
Interesting how the theme of money threaded it's way all through the novel. Great to read how the other half lives!
Tomorrow I have a morning dental appointment and then on to grocery shopping. After lunch, I'll be posting more of my thoughts.

Bill H

Although SHE was not a raving beauty, with her quiet charm SHE was attractive enough to make Max want to marry her. SHE was the opposite of Rebecca, a raving beauty, who was still very much in his mind when he met SHE and he didn't want to make the same mistake twice. Her youth and inexperience would be attractive for a man like Max who had lived only in high society since he was born and SHE was obviously well mannered and well bred but without a sou. Whether SHE could move in society like Rebecca was not something that Max wanted in a wife at this point. Marderley needed a women as much as he did.

I have always felt that Daphne de Maurier was describing herself in SHE's character, not only because she is the author but because she is describing the society and the Mansion that had been part of her life and it came easily to her. SHE's character seemed more believeable in the second part.

I think that the author could have described the murder scene in some other way to make the reader aware of how far Rebecca had pushed Max for him to kill her because to me nothing justified it. Rebecca was definitely evil and twisted, but Maxim has not demonstrated his capacity to go as far as killing his wife as he was not described as a violent man. Besides, how could he risk everything, his reputation, his wealth and most of all Manderley.

Eloïse

According to her biographers and others who knew her, Daphne du Maurier considered herself to be much more like Rebecca than like SHE. Though blonde, blue-eyed, petite, "a model of feminine English beauty," Du Maurier was a difficult woman who had been known to be cruel and demanding, and was quite often terribly mean to people she disliked and her inferiors, especially women.

Conventional morals meant little to this writer; she had affairs with both men and women when she was single and after she was married. Her daughter, Flavia, said:

"Bing (Mother) despised girlish ways and, as I was no longer under Nanny's influence, I strived to please my mother in the way I dressed. I was dressed in cord trousers and boys' shirts, my hair cut straight and bobbed. I developed into a tomboy and climbed trees."

Du Maurier felt that men were boys at heart, and she "never abandoned her boy-self, whom she called ' the boy in the box' imagining that he, not Daphne, fell in love with women." (Auerbach, Page 40, Haunted Heiress.) She played the role of Peter Pan, in life and on the stage. She emulated her grandfather and her actor father, whose idea of romance on the stage was to give the actress a peck of a kiss, then slap her a good one on the bottom.

Du Maurier certainly knew manor life. She was raised a wealthy aristocrat, and lived that way all of her life. Manderley was as swallowed up by overgrown weeds and rhododendrons as SHE was swallowed up by her inferior, creeping-around-the-mansion role. Whether Manderley was based on Menabilly, or whether it was a composite of many great houses du Maurier knew, is an unanswered question. I rather believe it was the latter.

Mal

for seemingly indicating that this discussion is over but failing to make clear that because of previous plans MY part in this discussion is over. Sorry for the confusion.

May I return the compliment, Jonathan? You have been a great "agent provocateur". I have enjoyed your "stirring of the pot" most of all.

And now, I repeat, I have enjoyed it. Thank you, all.

Mal that was a surprise !about the writer,yes she was another she,and Isaid earlier,that Danvers obsession to Rebecca,sounded strange.with her personality ,no wonder she created such complex characters,

bill it has been nice posting with you,I am at the moment enjoying my little garden outside.jonathan ,I as ususal enjoyed your contribution it is so long since I read the book ,I am inclined to follow the movie I am enjoying it though.gladys

I am on the waiting list at the library for the movie Rebecca. I am especially interested since in the intervening years I feel I mixed them up a bit. The book ending for one really surprised me.. Because I thought it was Jack how murdered her..perhaps in the movie no one murdered her..I will have to wait to see it before I know..anna

It was your insistence there was more to "SHE" than the reader was led to believe ..my mind just kept gnawing at that and finally I posted what I felt..but thanks to you ..the wheels started turning...I will look forward to "seeing all of you in another discussion"..anna The advantage of a discussion..by the way .reading everyone's ideas and opinions ..makes it special...Lorrie would have applauded..anna

ANNA, This is part of what I posted yesterday in Post #315 about the Hitchcock movie:

Auerbach (du Maurier's biographer) also says:

"Hitchcock films an affectionate young couple who make the mistake of wandering into a sinister house, one which fortunately burns down at the end. Hitchcock's direction sentimentalizes the material so radically that he hardly needed to soften the novel further by changing the plot.

"Hitchcock's Maxim is exonerated of wife-murder: America's Motion Picture Production Code refused to let a hero kill even a promiscuous wife. . . . not only Olivier, but Ronald Colman, who had turned down the part, refused to alienate audiences by killing Rebecca."

Auerbach goes on to say that Hitchcock's Rebecca falls and strikes her head on "a heavy piece of ship's tackle", while Maxim stands by and does nothing.

"The end (of the movie) is a triumph of young love, not the stricken exile we see in the novel. . . . In Hitchcock's version, Joan Fontaine does not accompany the men on their odyssey to Rebecca's gynecologist in London. Instead, she becomes the focus of the menaced Manderley as mad Mrs. Danvers stalks from room to room with a burning torch, unable, we are told, to bear the thought that Max and his new bride will live happily there."

GLADYS, Daphne du Maurier was the exact opposite of SHE, just as Rebecca was the opposite of SHE.

Mal

JONATHAN, I think you're a pain in the neck.

Krummholz
from your ardent admirer,

Mal

Phyl, thank you for your contributions to the discussion. I realize the holiday week end is upon us and that it takes priority. Have a nice holiday.
I would have liked the author to have explained why Frank Crawley worried that perhaps Max would be charged for Rebecca's murder. Did Frank just SURMISE? Did he see or hear something to make him feel this way?
Most probably Frank felt that Max murdered her because of the of Rebecca's wild escapades
Do any of you have your own opinions of this?

Bill H

BILL, I'm sure Frank Crawley was aware of what Rebecca had been doing in the boathouse-cottage. I think he also knew a great deal of what went on at Manderley: the running of the estate, expenses Rebecca ran up, her absences when she went to London, her treatment of workers on the estate, her relationship with Mrs. Danvers, as well as personal conflict Maxim had because of things she did. If anybody had an inside look at Maxim's and Rebecca's life together, he was the one.

Mal

Mal, I agree with with what you said about Frank Crawley. However, Max should have devorced Rebecca, regardless of what others might have thought. I would have thought all the more of him for doing so.
The neighboring socialites would have soon got over it after a few Manderley balls. This is what most of them wanted anyway

Bill H

PBS aired a Rebecca series movie starring Jeremy Brett--he of Sherlock Holmes fame--and Joanna David.
They both turned in a very good performance, but I believe Joanna David was much better suited for SHE than Joan Fontaine.

Bill H

By the way, do you folks remember Jeremy Brett playing the role of Freddy in "My Fair Lady?"

Bill H

"She had no enemy, no one she was in fear of?" "Mrs. de Winter afraid? She was afraid of no one and nobody, there was only one thing that she was afraid of - and that was pain.

We all stared. Paul Astley (Favrell) looked astonished.

"What on earth do you mean? What about the the falls she had out hunting? What abut the dogs she looked after?"

"Not that sort of pain, Mr. Paul. She was, like all strong people, afraid of being ill, and most of all of having operations. 'When I die, Danny,'she said to me, 'I hope it will be quick, like the snuffing of a candle. If I knew I was to suffer - I think I'd go clear off my head.""The Rebecca Notebook" Chapter XXIV

Does it seem odd to anyone that Rebecca never told anyone about her condition? Do you suppose that the note she sent Favrell was to lure him down to the cottage so that he might kill Rebecca? Instead Maxim took things into his own hands so to speak. I found it interesting that in the book Rebecca was shot by Maxim, in the Hitchcock movie she slipped and hit her head (because of the censors of the time) and in the Masterpiece Theatre version she was strangled. I can't help wonder if she was so afraid of operations and dying why she didn't end her life herself. Was it because when she came right down to it she had lost some of her control?

"She had been to have some X rays taken, and she came to know the results. She told me, 'I want to know the truth, no gentle bedside manner for me.' She had a deep-rooted malignant growth, and since she had asked for the truth I let her have it. The pain was slight as yet, but in six months' time, perhaps in less than that, she would have to be under morphia. An oepration might have done some good, personally I believe not."

"Dr. Baker," Henry (Maxim) leaning forward, "you are quite certain of this? There is no possibility of mistake?"

"None at all. Outwardly Mrs. Winter was a perfectly healthy woman. There was a certain malformation of the "u", she could never have had a child, for instance, but that had nothing to do with the disese." "The Rebecca Notebook" Chapter XXV

The one thing that always suprised me about this novel was the mention of the word "cancer". Even in the fifties when I was growing up the word itself was never mentioned - perhaps just a sliding reference to the disease. I think du Maurier was ahead of her time to even discuss the matter and to use it as the most important piece of information in the plot was ingenious. I'm still puzzled why Rebecca never told anyone about her condition - especially Danny.

BILL, I don't remember Jeremy Brett in "My Fair Lady", but I do remember him as Sherlock Holmes. He was great!

What do you think of the name of Rebecca's boat -- "Je reviens":- I'm coming back?

Mal

I wonder if Mrs. Danvers burns down Manderley to punish Maxim for the death of Rebecca and prevent him from living happily there with the 2nd Mrs. de Winter. Or does she do it to punish Rebecca, whose spirit she kept alive, for not having revealed the real truth to her? Rebecca, her body now recovered, her secret revealed, and her house destroyed, is finally dead.

Was Manderley really destroyed!
Did du Maurier have another ending in mind for her novel?
As I read the epilogue in my book that thought came to mind. For instances, the author may have expressed another ending in the thoughts that went through HER mind. For example:
"Poor Mrs. Danvers, I wonder what she is doing now…"
"…and this summer Manderley opens as a country club. "The prospectus was sent to me the other day"
" I did not show it to Henry, but put it away in the bottom of my trunk.
They have demolished the old gun room and the flower room in the east wing, and my little morning room, and have built what they call a "sun loggia," Italian style, with vita glass, so that the guests can sprawl about in negligee and acquire the fashionable tan"
"Four concrete squash courts stand where the stable used to be and they have sunk a swimming pool in the wilderness."
"I have no doubt that Joe Allan and his boys will look very well in the minstrels gallery, so appropriately placed for their convenience above the great hall, where I gather the Saturday dances are to be held,,,,:"
Well, it goes on and on about what Manderley is now, but I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.
It has been mentioned somewhere in the novel that Maxim now has scared hands, perhaps he was successful in beating out the flames )
Was Manderley restored? Did Max sell it, or is he leasing it for enough income to live the rest of his and HER life in reasonable comfort?
What intrigued me the most was HER thought, "Poor Mrs. Danvers, I wonder what she is doing now?"
D. du Maurier loves to mystify the reader of this novel.

Bill H

Perhaphs some of you don't have this epilogue. I will post some more excerpts from it later. However, it really is quite sad but that is in keeping with the rest of the novel.

Bill H

I certainly don't have this epilogue in my hard cover copy of the book. Who wrote it, BILL? Does it come from du Maurier's journal?

Mal

There was no epilogue in the Library book.

You know I can never get over what people do to Library books. There were all kinds of notes writen in mine. "HOW RUDE"!

I dont remember any epilogue either !but it was a long time ago I read

mine.I have been thinking along with the movie.I think it would have made a difference to my answers ,such a variety of endings.gladys

I've already returned my book and there was NO epilogue included.

Mal, FrancyLou, Gladys, and Alf.
My book also has an Author's Note . Here is an excerpt from her notes.
"…I had changed some of the names too. The husband was no longer Henry but Max--perhaps I thought Henry sounded dull. The sister and the cousin, they were different too. The narrator remained nameless, but the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers had become more sinister. Why I have no idea. THE ORIGINAL EPILOGUE SOMEHOW MERGED INTO THE FIRST CHAPTER, AND THE ENDING WAS ENTIRELY CHANGED…"
Apparently the publisher decided to include the original epilogue in this edition.
Also included in this edition was du Maurier's "House of Secrets." In this short novel du Maurier writes about her love for Menabilly house.

Bill H

Well,thanks bill for the information,Ican ususualy recall things ,but have no memory of that,there was more to the author than meets the eye. gladys

"That's not the northern lights," he said, "that's Manderley."
Horselover gave me the link to this graphic. Thank you, Horselover.
The above photo is from Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca" (1940 Oscar winner)

Bill H

That's the funniest thing I've heard yet. Imagine, the author not knowing what's going on.

Isn't that interesting! What a curious illustration of a character taking over and dictating to the author. What an unusual tension between author and She. How could the author have She saying, in an epilogue, years after the fire, 'Poor Mrs Danvers. I wonder what she is doing now.'

The truth of the matter is, that in the last chapters of the book she, Mrs Danvers, is no longer sinister. The narrator has begun feeling sympathetic, almost kindly towards Mrs Danvers, as She begins to feel more confident about her conjugal happiness. Maxim, on the other hand, is not at all happy. He has had enough of Manderley. He wants only to recapture the happiness of those first few weeks, when he was charmed by the shy, seductively naive young girl he had met in Monte Carlo. Frank is a willing accomplice in destroying Manderley. Maxim's young bride had only managed to make a Pandora's Box of horrors of Manderley.

Instead of a woman to be pitied, Mrs Danvers is turned into a grotesque, gothic skeleton with evil intentions to deny the new wife her rightful place. She works her will. The author herself is baffled, trys to make amends in an epilogue, then changes her mind again.!

If you think that I have been a pain in the neck, in this discussion, what would you have made of the author, had she participated, with her imaginative interpretations and authority to make changes?

A nice day to you, Mrs Danvers, wherever you are. Do you still weep over the shards of the broken doll?

Jonathan

DuMaurier isn't the only author, Jonathan, to say their characters had taken on a life of their own, and changed the direction of a story. Once your characters become real in your imagination, I can see how you would find that it simply won't work having 'heroine' act the way you had planned for her to act. So, the author has to find another route.

I'm glad DuMaurier changed Henry to Max. I agree, Henry sounds dull. (In case that gets me into trouble, there are probably lots of exciting Henrys out there. (But I'll bet they're not called Henry by their friends.) <g> Babi

JONATHAN, I was joking! You're one of my very best Cyberspace friends . . . but you know that already.

The "Epilogue" is interesting, but I don't think it's important. Authors develop their themes, characters and plot as they edit and revise what they write. I much prefer the final product to anything I've read in Daphne du Maurier's notes.

If she'd wanted the book to be what is in her notebooks, she'd have left it that way, and she didn't.

Alfred Hitchcock distorted du Maurier's book terribly and turned it into a romantic love affair. That was not the author's intention. She was furious with Hitchcock and fought with him while the film was being made. One of her greatest fears was that she'd be remembered by Hitchcock's movie and not by what she actually wrote.

JONATHAN, I don't think meek, mild, respectful and obedient Frank Crawley had anything to do with the fire at Manderley.

Mal

Jonhan: As an author I'd like to answer your speculation that du Maurier wouldn't have known how the book ended. When you start a novel you have some idea of where you are going, but not necessarily all the details. It's a little like driving to New York from Portland, Oregon. You know what your destination is, but as you travel down the road there are little side streets you venture to take that you hadn't even thought about when you first started. Writing is like that. Sometimes the ideas you had to start with are just that, ideas - some good and some not so good. I once left a character hanging from a cliff - as far as I know he's still there now. At the beginning I thought it was a good idea, but I just couldn't make it work.

"Going towards Manderley. We still have to go away - they take the decision, they go over it all. After all that has happened. Perhaps Rebecca will have the last word yet. The road narrows before the avenue. A car with blazing headlights passed. Henry (Maxim) swerved to avoid it, and it came at us, rearing out of the ground, its huge arms outstretched to embrace us, crashing and splintering above our heads." "The Rebecca Notebook" - Chapter XXVI

Wow! A lot different than the final version. No burning Manderley. As a result of the car crash Maxim is crippled and SHE walks with a cane. But the characters have come full circle. If you remember when she first meets de Winter she thinks that she might like to take care of him. Now with Maxim crippled that is what she does. I have to say this ending is less dramatic, but I like it better because you might say Maxim gets what the law couldn't do and the 2nd Mrs. de Winter takes care of him rather than the other way around.

Notes: Epilogue ? 1. Atmosphere 2. Simplicity of style 3. Keep to the main theme 4. Characters few and well defined 5. Build it up little by little

What do think? Did du Maurier stick to her ideas throughout the novel as far as the above five are concerned?

"I suppose we are both very changed. Henry (Maxim) looks much older of course, and his hair has gone very grey; but there is a certain stillness about him, an air of tranquillity that was not there before, and I - rather too late in the day - have lost my diffidence, my timidity, my shyness with strangers. Perhaps Henry's dependence upon me for every little thing has made me confident and bold at last. At any rate I am different from that self who drove to Manderley for the first time, hopeful and eager, handicapped by a rather desperate gaucherie, and filled with an intense desire to please. Those preceding years of companionship with Mrs. Van Hopper had scarcely engendered in me great qualities of confidence, and it was my lack of poise that made such a bad impression on people like Mrs. Danvers. What must I have seemed like after Rebecca?

Now, with Henry by my side, in spite of all we have lost, in spite of his maimed body and scarred hands, those days, the terror, the distress, are over, and I feel a glow of contentment come upon me. His maimed body and my disfigurement are things of no account, we have learned to accept them, we live, we breathe, we have vitality, the spark of divinity has not passed us by. This factor alone should be enough for us; we have been spared to one another, and because of this we shall endure.

...Henry draws the rug over his knees, throws away his cigarette, then closed his eyes. I fix my dark glasses, reach for my bag of knitting. And before us, long as the skein of wool I wind, stretches the vista of our afternoon.

I found "The Rebecca Epilogue" long and rather boring, but full of information especially about the narrator. Although I like the idea of the characters of coming full circle and learning something from their past, I would have preferred the characters to show rather than tell what they learned through action or dialogue.

Jonathan, as Scrawler and the rest of us realize, in the original epilogue there was no burning of Manderley. de Winter either sold the house or leased it out. Either way, it was made into a country club. That is why SHE said "Poor Mrs. Danvers, I wonder what she is doing now."
However, I must admit I was surprised to read du Maurier wrote she didn't know how Danvers turned out to be a sinister character. Even Dr Frankenstein new how he created the monster!

Bill H

page-turner and well written in some ways, I felt there were major flaws in it. I know I didn't like or admire a single main character in it, so I had no empathy for any of them. They all deserved each other and deserved their fates and then some. The fact that a "privileged" man got away with murder disturbs me. Even though he had to leave Manderley, I think he should have been in prison as any other person would have been who murdered someone. And even though I thought Rebecca was evil and manipulative, she didn't deserve to be murdered. Divorce, separation, all sorts of other options come to mind. Murder is not one of them. But then, there wouldn't have been a mystery, would there?

I was delighted that Manderley burned. It felt very satisfying to me since Max got away with a dastardly crime. I felt it might have been Max's one last chance to become a decent person and develop some character. But he didn't. So he struck out with me three times---with the murder of Rebecca, when he married SHE without letting her know what she was getting into, and when he didn't get his act together after Manderley burned. I don't see him as a hero at all, but as one of those pathetic spoiled people who think the world owes them just because of an accident of birth. And SHE lost all my respect after she found out what he had done and didn't leave him. Ugly characters, every one of them, but good mystery story!

Just went back and read the posts which occurred since I last visited. My book, which I unearthed in some of the oldies around here,does not have the epilogue..I think one of the children must have read it in High school..as they're in 40's and 30's.. who knows HOW old the copy is. All of you really have had a wonderful time with this book ..I stick to my original comment that it is a reflection of the time in which it was written.. great to be with you. Have a happy 4th.... Colkot

It was good to read all of the posts. I read the book when I was 12 and tbere was no epilogue then I am sure...Positive in fact ..the one I checked out of the library had no epilogue either ..I will pay close attention to the movie..I think it must have colored my belief it was a romance ..a mystery too but the romance was what stuck with me ...

I dont know what book I read years ago ,..it was about a woman..a very popular book ..and by a famous author but I remember reading what she had to say about the main character. She was never meant to be the main character. The author said she just took over the book and made it her own. So I suspect that is not too unusual.

Even when writing poetry I am often surprised at the finished product. There is an idea , a thought I start out with but when I type that last line I am often surprised .Once in a class I even suggested I was a channeler for some dead poet ...now I confess I dont believe that for a minute ..but the surprises I receive are really that ..surprises. My intentions are some way kidnapped ..

It has been a GRAND discussion...loved every minute.thanks again to Bill who kept us on track and pushed us to think about the story and for all the rest .. it wouldnt have been the same without you. It was just PERFECT!!!anna

I've enjoyed every minute ~ I hope we find a book as good as this one to discuss again.

MountainRose - Well said.

You can't convict anybody of stealing even a hairpin if there isn't proof.

In the first place, where is the victim here? Rebecca's deteriorated body showed no sign of foul play. The bullet went through her and did not hit bone, which was the only way anyone could have told she'd been shot. Under the law, then, who is the murder victim?

The only thing that was suspicious was the holes in the boat. There was not any way to prove Rebecca didn't make them herself in a suicide attempt.

I'm not condoning what Maxim did. I'm saying that without evidence someone has been murdered, there isn't a case. There was absolutely nothing to prove anyone had committed a crime.

Maxim's wealth had nothing to do with anything here. The fact that there was no murder victim and there was no evidence meant that anyone who had suspicions about him didn't have a leg to stand on.

The letter Favell had from Rebecca didn't mean anything when Dr. Baker stated that she wasn't pregnant and that she had cancer. The fact of that she had incurable cancer was enough to give ample reason for her wanting to die by her own hand.

If Daphne du Maurier had wanted this book to be different, she'd have written it that way. Her decision to have Maxim suffer long-term punishment in his exile to Limbo the rest of his life was the best one for this story, in my opinion.

Mal

I found your post esp. interesting, Annafair. I am no poet, but on two occasions I have written a poem. On both occasions I felt a strong impulse to write and a beginning germ of what I wanted to say. Both times, the poem flowed out with almost no effort on my part. The first poem required only two or three minor changes; about the same on the other. And that's it. I can understand your feeling of 'where did that come from?'! ...Babi

I personally do NOT believe that Hitchcock's version resembled a "love affair" at all. He was a master at subtlety. Even when She fawned and drooled over Maxim he remained standoffish and aloof. He barely touched her if it could have been avoided.

Living such an existence with Rebecca and "Danny" the old guy earned his reprieve.

While I think killing in war and for self-defense can be justified, I don't justify outright murder even in a book. Max, to me, was no one to be admired or even sympathized with. In fact, just the opposite. I believe people of privilege ought to set good examples instead of acting spoiled and being wastrels and self-indulgent, and he was all of those things and more. Of course, without the murder there wouldn't have been a plot, and I understand that, but I'm entitled to my opinion about the plot and the author, and in this case the plot had some major flaws that I couldn't overlook.

Sorry, we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I prefer to read about people who show some moxie in their character, and in this book there wasn't a single one.

Alf, I agree that he must have suffered somewhat because of how Max's behavior was described in Monaco and how he later admitted that he had shot Rebecca out of utter frustration at his wife's evil behavior. Mrs Danvers who said she knew Rebecca since childhood and her had become partners and the line between servant and master was very thin indeed.

The rest of his life SHE stayed with Max and she loved and supported him all along even when he apparently had lost his beloved Manderley and also his vast fortune. To me that is proof because real love when it includes commitment. She and Max both kept his secret and both carried the lifelong burden of having a crime on their conscience, a crime SHE did not commit.

Eloïse

ROSE, I have never said I approved of what Max de Winter did. What I said was his sentence of exile by du Maurier (in my opinion) suited this book.

Have you looked at your art page in the Independence Day issue of Sonata yet? Folks, ROSE is a talented artist. Click this link and see what she does.

Artwork by RoseMarie Mucklin
Mal

Mountain Rose, it seems as though Max did get away with murder. But did he really? He may have paid for his crime by losing his beloved Manderley and possibly the respect of his upper-class friends and neighbors.
Col. Julyan did "suggest" that Max "go away" for a while. Maybe his exile was his prison term. He told one of the guests at the small hotel on the Mediterranean, "No, we will never go home again." For Max, this could be worse than a prison sentence.
And, as Mal pointed out, there was no real proof he committed the crime. You may say circumstantial evidence pointed his way, but many a clever attorney(s) showed that circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict. One only has to recall the O. J. Simpson trial.
Max confessed his crime to SHE. How painful for him to live with the knowledge his wife knew he was a murderer. How agonizing for her knowing that her husband had killed a person in cold blood. They both endured this knowledge. "All the days of their lives.."

Bill H

ANDY, one ( maybe three ! ) of the novels I've written is soon to be published. If a screenplay is written and some director gets hold of it, I'll scream bloody murder if he-she does to my stuff what Alfred Hitchcock did to Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca.

Sure, Hitchcock was subtle, technically knowledgeable, aware of what sells to a movie-going public and talented, but he changed the beginning of Rebecca from a scene with SHE and Mrs. Van Hopper to a dramatic, charged-with-emotion episode where SHE rescues Maxim from jumping off a cliff.

He changed Mrs. Danvers from a woman who was not only devoted to, but obsessed with her mistress, Rebecca, to a sinister, terrible woman who went through Manderley with a torch with SHE trying to stop her, as this crazy old woman set fire to everything in this beautiful, great house and burned the place down.

Where in the book do you read anything like that?

Hitchcock didn't have SHE go to Dr. Baker's with Maxim, Colonel Julyan and Jack Favell. He left her at Manderley to cope with the madwoman he'd created out of whole cloth.

In the movie Maxim comes back from seeing Dr. Baker to find Manderley in flames. Is he worried about the house? No, he's worried about SHE, who has escaped with Jasper, and is wandering the grounds. He takes SHE in his arms and watches the place burn down.

Is this what du Maurier wrote? Hell, no, as they say in some circles around.

If anyone does this kind of thing to my little book (if I get lucky and someone wants to buy it for the movie rights), I'm going to scream so loud that you'll hear me in the middle of next week! That's what Daphne du Maurier did, and it didn't do any good. I only hope as time goes by that people judge her by what she wrote and not what the brilliant director, ( and he was about some things ) Alfred Hitchcock, dreamed up.

Mal

CONGRATULATIONS, MAL! Please don't forget to tell us how to get a copy.

Mal, if the price was right, would you still scream bloody murder.)

Bill H

Hey, Horselover, sure I will. Only I want you to be prepared.

If you're not ready to read about a womanizing professor of English literature at a women's college who gets involved in playing a role in a very serious play called "Precarious Global Incandescence" about the environment, man's inhumanity to humankind, AIDS, and women's rights which all of a sudden turns in to a musical in which this pompous professor, who's going through a midlife crisis, plays a drag queen, you'd best not read it.

The story is a rather satiric look at academia and the personal problems of an aging intellectual guy who's all mixed up in the Machiavellian machinations of academic life, as well as the horrendous happenings to nubile young students who are facing their life crises at the same time.

Mal

BILL, in a word, NO. I didn't need those Hollywood mess-up-my-novel boys before I met them, and I don't need them now.

Mal

1. Some have said that "Rebecca" was a Cinderella story. The nameless heroine of du Maurier's novel is saved from a life of drudgery and marries a handsome, wealthy aristocrat, but unlike the prince in 'Cinderella', Maxim de Winter is old enough to be the narrator's father. The narrator must do battle with the Other woman - the dead Rebecca and her witch-like surrogate, Mrs. Danvers to win the lover her husband - father figure. The fantasy of the novel is fulfilled when Maxim confesses to the narrator that he never loved Rebecca - that he in fact hated her, a confession that allows the narrator to emerge triumphantly from the Oedipal triangle. (According to: "Rebecca's Tale" by Sally Beauman Max's father had an affair with Rebecca's mother.)

2. "Rebecca is considered the first major gothic romance in the twentieth century. The novel contains most of the trappings of the typical gothic romance: a myserious and haunted mansion (Manderley/Menabilly), violence, murder, a sinister villain, sexual passion, a spectacular fire, brooding landscapes, and a version of the mad woman in the attic. The novel, however, is much more than a mystery story it is a study of an obessive personality, of human identity, and the liberation of the hidden self. The real power of the novel derives from the author's obsession with her charismatic father and her resolution of that obsession through the fantasy structure of the story.

3)du Mauier is a master storyteller who knew how to manipulate female fantasies. She creates in her fiction a world that is simple, romantic, adventuresome, myserious, picturesque and emotionally satisfying. It is a world that contrasts with the mundane realities of ordinary existance.

4)Few writers have created more magical and mysterious places than Manderely, a house invested with a rich and brooding character that gives the house a life of its own. du Mauier transforms the place into a gothic paradise, a sacred structure of the imagination shaped by the the violent and mysterious history of Cornwall.

To me the fourth item was what made the book for me. "Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again...Nature had come into her own again and, little by, litle, in her stealthy, insidious way had encroached upon the drive with long tenacious fingers. The woods, always a menance even in the past, had triumphed in the end. They crowded, dark and uncontrolled, to the borders of the drive..." This is what I'll remember from "Rebecca" - Manderely and the surrounding grounds, especially the sea and Rebecca's cottage.

Additional books & movies:

1. "Mrs. de Winter" author: Susan Hill (1993) I give this book 1/2 a tumb up. Except for the fact that we find out what happens to Maxim and the 2nd Mrs. de Winter I found that this book read more like a travelog. Imagine that after ten years you move back to England and buy a house on the other side from where Manderely is and discover that your closest neighbor is Mrs. Danvers.

2. "Rebecca's Tale" author: Sally Beauman (2001) I give this book 2 thumbs up. The book is told by three people: Colonel Julyan, Mr. Gray, and Ellie Julyan (the colonel's daughter). It answers the question: who was Rebecca? Not only does it give the history of Maxim and Rebecca, but it goes into details about the beginning of Manderley and why Rebecca wants to be mistress. Set in the 1950s, I found it very entertaining.

3. "The Rebecca Notebook and Other Memories" Author: Daphine du Maurier (1980) I gave this one - 1 thumb up. I found that "Rebecca's Notebook" very interesting, but really enjoyed "The House of Secrets" where the author describes Menabilly and what the house met to her. Her early short stories reveals many of the same plot ideas that we see in "Rebecca" - jealously, class satire, father-figure lovers, etc.

4. "The Key to Rebecca" author: Ken Follet (1980)This book I gave 4 thumbs up! For those that like spy thrillers this is the book. An excerpt from the dust jacket: "Alex Wolff is a German spy sent to Cairo to feed critical information on Allied forces to Rommel's advancing army. William Vandam, a British officer, rushes to find the key to the code Wolff is using for his messages, a code that lies in Daphine du Maurier's "Rebecca.""

Movies:

1. Alfred Hitchcock's "Rebecca" staring Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine. I watched the DVD which gave a lot of information about how the movie was made - especially Hitchcock's photography. I didn't care so much for Olivier or Fontaine's performance, but I thought Judith Anderson did a maganificent job as the sinister Mrs. Danvers. I also didn't care for George Sanders as Jack Favell. I'm afraid that Hitchcock was ahead of his time in the his phtography shots, but I think that is reallywhat makes the movie - not the screenplay but the photography.

2. The Exxon Mobil Masterpiece Theatre production of "Rebecca" was much better performed and stayed closer to the book written by du Maurier. I thought Charles Dance did a much better job as Maxim than Olivier. In this production Diana Rigg portrays a less sinister Mrs. Danvers. Jack Favell's character was extremely well done and I thought the setting of 1927 really brought Manderley to life.

To one and all thank you for a great discussion. Have a safe and happy 4th of July and I hope to see you soon in other discussion groups.

well I am at a loss,so many varying stories ,epilogues and such ,I dont know which is which,so cant find much to end with.Bill thank you ,I did enjoy it.I have read Ken Follets key to Rebecca ,Ilike the spy stuff,and heart in your mouth stories.

Rose bravo buetiful work you do.Mal done my submittal, love to all Gladys

I still think Jack Favell was the cause of Manderly being burned. I think he got Danny and all of Rebecca's "friends" to go set fire to it. Otherwise between the butler, maids, etc they could of put it out.

I don't think I want to ruin my view of the book by reading any of the others "idea's". But I did enjoy all your opinions.

I think I liked Jack Favell best. Du Maurier did an excellent job when she created him. In another life station, I see him as a small time swindler hanging around a pool hall, all dressed up in a pin stripe suit with a cigar hanging out of his mouth, ready to bilk anyone who comes along. This character, Rebecca's cousin, gave me a much fuller conception of what Rebecca was. Good job, Daphne. (Or can I call you "Bing" the way your kids did? Hey, wait! Don't shove me like that! I'll get out of here! Whew!)

Poor old Jack. He was one user in this book that got took ! Come to think of it, I guess they all did. There has to be a moral in that somewhere.

Mal

FRANCY, I don't think Jack had anything to do with the fire. There was too much in that house that could have brought him cash. (If he'd had enough glue on his fingers.)

Mal

. . .an intriguing mystery. BUT----our ultimate opinion of a book depends on why we read what we read. People read for all sorts of reasons, including passing the time, entertainment, habit, learning, analyzing, etc. I tend to read, and read a LOT, for two different reasons: One, I want information; and two, I like to get a look into the human condition.

For information I read nonfiction (which is what I read most of the time). For getting insight into the human condition I read some fiction, but I'm also very critical of it if it doesn't come across very well for the specific purpose of insight and positive learning. This book did not come across very well except in a negative way---all the ways I would hope I would NOT react if I were in a similar situation. That's fine in its way, but it doesn't give me positive patterns of how I might react in a positive way in a situation. I guess that's why I prefer books with heros and heroines who are feisty and honorable and do the right thing under impossible circumstances, instead of people like this who are everything I never would want to be.

And if you feel that Max got his comeuppance, that's fine with me. I don't feel that way. In fact, I think Max was a yellow coward all the way through the book (a purpose which certainly served du Maurier's plot). He not only killed instead of handling his problems in a more positive way, but then he wallowed in self-pity, married an innocent girl without telling her what she was getting into, confessed only to her after the boat was found, and then felt sorry for himself after the house was burned and all his privileges gone. Sorry, but that's how I see him. Ugly, selfish, self-indulgent. Anywhere along the line he could have become A MAN, by growing up and accepting responsibility for his actions, including confessing to the crime instead of hiding it when the trial came up. And if he had done anything right, I could have had some empathy for him and maybe even some modicum of respect. Under the circumstances of what he was, I did NOT. Part of my reaction comes from having known people like this and knowing how much pain and destruction they can leave in their wake.

Du Maurier certainly had the right to tell the story as she saw fit, and she did exactly that. It is, after all, her story to tell. I just happened not to have liked the people in it. To me it was like reading a tale about a mafia family. No matter how interesting the tale might be, no matter how well written, I still would have no respect for the characters and would consider it a "negative" insight into human behavior instead of a positive role model. I guess I just prefer the positive, characters who can teach me how to endure and live with some sort of honor.

But that's my personal opinion only. No one needs to share it and I've never looked for any sort of agreement. Let me just say that I would never invite any of the characters in this book into my living space, and I can't believe that as young people, all of us in the group I hung around with felt this was a "romantic" tale. Ugh!

What a blessing it is to grow older!

Mal, this may surprse you, but my favorite character was Mrs. Danvers. When I think of "Rebecca" she is the first that comes to mind .
I believe du Maurier did portray Danny as a sinister person. She writes about her skeleton like features with pale skin stretched tightly across her face and a grin like smile. Danny could be seen lurking in dark hall ways, appearing specter like at top of stairs, and appearing suddenly in rooms thought empty. I don't think I would care to meet Danny unexpectedly in a dark hall way or in an isolated wing of a house.
I'm inclined to agree with FrancyLou that Jack "fired" up Mrs. Danvers with his phone call to the point of her setting Manderley ablaze.
I don't think Max would have allowed Jack to enter the mansion ever again, and, of course, Danvers would be gone. This would preclude Favel from helping himself to any of the valuables.
However, I'm not sure the author ever did say it was Mrs. Danvers that set the fire.

Bill H

Tomorrow, July 5th, is the last day of the Rebecca discussion.
I would like to express a few more thoughts.
I also enjoyed reading the "small" things du Maurier wrote about in this novel. She subtly, or maybe not so subtly, brought out the importance of the English Tea time and the formality with which it was carried out by the upper-class. At times I got the impression every one waited for four-thirty for their tea break
At Manderley the four thirty time was very much adhered to. When SHE wanted her tea served by the flower garden a little earlier, Robert was quick to point out that "it was not yet four thirty."
I loved Daphne's description of the English buffet breakfast. So much was laid out for two people They could help themselves to eggs, hot cakes, bacon, sausages, and English muffins with butter. My mouth was watering for a taste of some of these goodies.
It was small references such as these that made the novel even more enjoyable for me.

Bill H

ROSE, if I had disliked the characters in this book as much as you did I never would have finished reading it. We all carry our own baggage full of experiences we've had and people we've known or read about with us when we read a book. You say the character of Maxim de Winter reminds you of people you apparently don't respect at all. Though I've known men like what you describe, Max did not fill that role in my mind.

He was a rich Englishman, steeped in the ways of the aristocracy and that level of Society. His love for a great house that had been in his family for generations drove him -- drove him mad enough to kill the woman who was degrading the family manse and himself. He was insane at that moment, just as whoever set fire to Manderley was also insane.

This is how I see him. I don't see him wallowing in self-pity at all. He was struggling with the fact that he had so badly lost control, and by so doing had tarnished the family name -- something people in his class were taught from childhood not to do. He had let his family for generations before him -- and himself -- down, very hard to live with, and du Maurier portrays this very well, in my opinion.

This is, after all, only a novel, a work of fiction with a cast of characters that never lived and breathed or walked this earth. In order to write the story as she wanted to, Daphne du Maurier never could have let Maxim confess.

It seems to me that she burdens her characters, each one of them, with faults they deny that get them in trouble. Even Bee, as normal-sounding as she is, would never admit to what a snob she was, or how she disrupted what was going on every time she entered a room.

This is a psychological study of the upper class as contrasted with a few representatives of people who were not of that class. SHE, Frank Crawley, even wealthy Mrs. Van Hopper, Danvers, the servants, Ben, did not and would not ever really fit into the rarified air of that classs. Each one of these lower class people is influenced by and reacts to the ones "to the manor born." It's an interesting distinction, and I think du Maurier shows it very well. Even Jasper was a snobby dog, ha ha.

Colkot has said this book is a reflection of its time. I agree.

I can't pass judgment on any of these characters. After all, they were only doing what their creator made them do. I'll pass judgment on the author of this book, though, and say I think she did a very good job.

Mal

Yes, BILL, those breakfasts and teatime were an important part of the book, and a comment on English ways of living, too. I've been in grand houses and gone downstairs in the morning to see a sideboard groaning under platters of food like what du Maurier describes. My appetite fails me when I see a spread that huge and the ceremony that goes along with it, especially in the morning.

My poor mother, who died in poverty in 1940 in a 2 room cold water tenement with a kerosene stove in the kitchen for heat and cooking, served her version of tea every afternoon at about 4. She didn't have money enough for tea sandwiches, angel food cake, and other such treats, she made little rounds of fried bread dough to go with the tea, which she always flavored with cloves. Having tea with Mama for a very brief period of my life is one of the most pleasant childhood memories I have.

Mal

MOUNTAINROSE, I nodded my head reading your post and when I read novels as a young girl, I lived literally inside the story, of course I was very romantic and naïve then. Oh Well time passes on and I read everything differently now and I question every word.

I think that for every time I was angry, very angry, I don't remember a time when I couldn't control my anger and reacted in ways I would regret all my life.

Like MAL said, Rebecca is a novel and the author wrote what she thought would make a good read in order to SELL her book. Shocking a reader has always been done, but now hardly anything is shocking any more, we have become so accustomed to it and writers try hard finding something shocking enough.

50 years ago books like Rebecca were avant-garde, but now what is a little murder, a little deceit, a little corruption, it is so commonplace today that is it surprising that the old classics written half a century ago are still popular.

Thank you Bill for a wonderful discussion.

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY ALL YOU LOVELY AMERICANS

Eloïse

Obviously, Mal, if you want to have more say-so than DuMaurier did on the film version of her book, you'll have to be sure it's in the contract!

I'm glad to see that you brought up a point I was planning to make here. I agree there is no justification for murder. Having said that, it must be apparent that at the point at which Maxim shot his wife he had been maddened to the point of no longer being in full control of his actions. Rebecca knew exactly what would drive him to the point of violence, and deliberately set about it. Juries frequently return lesser verdicts in the face of diminished capacity, and this was clearly such a case.

Babi

Personally, I liked Rebecca the best. Yes, I know she wasn't really there or was she? She is what made all the other characters go round and round. True you don't see her, but you feel her everywhere as Mrs. Danvers says to the 2nd Mrs. de Winter. It is this feeling of Rebecca along with the dark atmosphere from the house and the surrounding gardens and sea that make the book what it is.

I forgot to mention that while reading: "The Rebecca Notebook" I found two sections very interesting: "The House of Secrets" where du Maurier describes first seeing Menabilly. This first sighting was finally incorporated into the first chapter of "Rebecca". Finally, the section Memories to me was the best writing I've ever seen from Dauphne du Maurier. Here's what she has to say about it:

"The ten prose pieces which follow are not articles in the strict sense of the word, for I have never been a journalist but a writer of novels, stories and biographies, including one book of childhood and adolescent memories. The reader will have understood how the fiction arose out of the unconscious, coupled with observation but above all with imagination."

The memories of her mother's actions agaisnt her father's infacuations with other women and the author's reaction to both of her parents are represented in "Rebecca" between Maxim, the narrator, and Rebbeca.

It makes a difference if this book is read as if it were a historical novel like the ones by the Bronte sisters. Rebecca was first published in 1938, and du Maurier said it took place in the mid-20's, which, after all, is over 75 years ago.

Mal

I am reading the Glass Blowers now. I think maybe du Maurier did not think much of men. This is another story, set in 1750 to 1800+, which puts down men - except the father. But the women are strong in most cases.

I think I have enjoyed all your observations ,just as well as the book my favorite character was Jack also,weak but 'touching in a way.and as I said before ,I loved George Saunders voice.I liked the English touches,the buffet the tea time,we never knew a tea time!!as such

we used to have tea ,the same time we have supper ,or( dinner in either one)we wernt the Upper crust.I will always wonder about Rebecca we only knew her through several poeples eyes.As has been said ,it wouldnt have been the story it was.thanks to Bill and all of you gladys

Today brings to a close our discussion of Daphne du Maurier's novel "Rebecca."
My sincere thanks for your participation. I realize all of us had our own views of the novel and the author's portrayal of the characters. The way you expressed those opinions made this a truly delightful discussion.
The many thoughtful and interesting ideas that were posted in the discussion made it an impressive memorial to our Lorrie. I am sure Lorrie would have loved taking part in this discussion and answering your posts.
This one was for you, Lorrie. Perhaps you were looking over my shoulder and smiling.
Again, my sincere thanks to all who participated in the discussion.

Bill H

Thanks to everybody who participated in this discussion. It was a great and stimulating one. Special thanks to BILL for his gentle steering of these conversations. See you all in another one, I hope.

Mal

Thank you, Bill. We appreciate you. ...Babi

Although I'll never agree with the opinion that Maxim got away with murder...nobody gets away with anything in REBECCA, not even the narrator it seems...nevertheless, I feel that Maxim deserved another turn of the screw for not permitting his second wife to accompany him into the crypt to help bury the first. We'll never know what macabrous account, or plot twist we've been deprived of. It's thrilling to contemplate.

For me the narrator, the nameless one, has been the most fascinating character of the whole sorry lot. What an amazing insight she allows the reader into her psyche, as she lives out her dream. What a shock to her innocence as she meets the real world out there. What a vivid retelling of life behind those iron gates. What a life of unpleasant surprises it turned out to be for her, impossible to be guessed at when she fell in love with the Manderley on the postcard.

And the biggest surprise of all for her at Manderley? Tea time. That mainstay of British life. Touched on numerous times in the most recent posts.

'...In a few minutes Frith came in, followed by Robert carrying the table for tea. The solemn ritual went forward as it always did, DAY AFTER DAY, the leaves of the table pulled out, the legs adjusted, the laying of the snowy cloth, the putting down of the silver tea-pot and the kettle with the little flame beneath. Scones, sandwiches, three different sorts of cake. Jasper sat close to the table, his tail thumping now and again upon the floor, (She used to drum her fingers on occasion) his eyes fixed expectantly on me (go ahead, think of something, he seemed to say). It's funny, I thought, how the routine of life goes on, whatever happens: we do the same things, go through the little performances of eating, sleeping, washing. No crisis can break through the crust of habit. I poured out Maxim's tea, I took it to him on the window seat, gave him his scone, and buttered one for myself.' p318

It must have been during one of those tea-times that the whole sorry business of this tale started taking shape in the dark recesses of her soul.

I'll never again look at a girl of a certain type and age without wondering what's going on in that head of hers.

Congratulations, Bill, for your clever choice of a marvellous book, and thanks to all of you for the stimulating discussion.

Jonathan